It’s hard to ever feel sympathy for the New York Times, but watching the uncontrolled rage directed at them by an alliance of leftwing virtue signalers and social justice warriors over a recent article exposing the insidious effort of neo-Nazis to ingratiate themselves in our communities actually made me experience a twinge of support for this propaganda arm of the Democrat Party. That is until they fell all over themselves apologizing for their mistake, begging to be allowed back into the good graces of the grievance mongering monster they’ve helped create.
It all appears to have started when a “policy analyst” named Sean McElwee posted an inflammatory, inaccurate tweet showing selected portions of two different Times stories:
Image 1: nyt profile of neo-nazi
Image 2: nyt profile of unarmed man executed by police
The first image showed this excerpt from a recent exposé on Neo-Nazis:
In Ohio, amid the row crops and rolling hills, the Olive Gardens and Steak ‘n’ Shakes, Mr. Hovater’s presence can make hardly a ripple. He is the Nazi sympathizer next door, polite and low-key at a time the old boundaries of accepted political activity can seem alarmingly in flux. Most Americans would be disgusted and baffled by his casually approving remarks about Hitler, disdain for democracy and belief that the races are better off separate. But his tattoos are innocuous pop-culture references: a slice of cherry pie adorns one arm, a homage to the TV show “Twin Peaks.” He says he prefers to spread the gospel of white nationalism with satire. He is a big “Seinfeld” fan.
The second image showed this excerpt from a Times story about the police shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri:
Michael Brown, 18, due to be buried on Monday, was no angel, with public records and interviews with friends and family revealing both problems and promise in his young life. Shortly before his encounter with Officer Wilson, the police say he was caught on a security camera stealing a box of cigars, pushing the clerk of a convenience store into a display case. He lived in a community that had rough patches, and he dabbled in drugs and alcohol. He had taken to rapping in recent months, producing lyrics that were by turns contemplative and vulgar. He got into at least one scuffle with a neighbor.
The conclusion is left to the reader, but the implication is as obvious as it can be: the Times is harder on black people than they are on white nationalists. That, of course, is stupid. But it’s intended. I know nothing about Mr. McElwee but he betrays an aggressive dishonesty by referring to the shooting death of Michael Brown as an “execution,” something Barack Obama’s Department of Justice under Eric Holder found completely false. McElwee’s framing is the language of a partisan activist, not a fair mind.
Context is entirely missing as well. These are two very different articles, both selectively quoted. If a person actually took the time to read the first piece, they would have found the article was about how neo-Nazis are attempting to normalize themselves and blend in with mainstream culture. One of the strategies of these racist bigots is to have all the appearances of conventional citizens. The New York Times makes a concerted effort to expose that strategy with this article.
It was 1 a.m. and Michael Brown, Jr. called his father, his voice trembling. He had seen something overpowering. In the thick gray clouds that lingered from a passing storm this past June, he made out an angel. And he saw Satan chasing the angel and the angel running into the face of God. Mr. Brown was a prankster, so his father and stepmother chuckled at first.
“No, no, Dad! No!” the elder Mr. Brown remembered his son protesting. “I’m serious.”
And the black teenager from this suburb of St. Louis, who had just graduated from high school, sent his father and stepmother a picture of the sky from his cellphone. “Now I believe,” he told them.
In the weeks afterward, until his shooting death by Darren Wilson, a white police officer, on Aug. 9, they detected a change in him as he spoke seriously about religion and the Bible. He was grappling with life’s mysteries.
McElwee could have quoted that part of Brown’s story. And he could have quoted the part of the Nazi story where Hovater is called a bigot, a fascist, and a hater. But he didn’t. Thus he, and the legions that believed, liked, and retweeted his dishonest characterization are guilty of the very offense they pretend to be enraged over. Just pathetic.