Sirajuddin Haqqani, deputy leader of the Taliban, who has taken up frequent residence on the FBI’s most-wanted list, had a piece published in The New York Times in February.
That’s right, the man who has a $5 million U.S. bounty and kills civilians for a living also writes opinion editorials.
So why is this important?
Recently, Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, who, coincidentally, fought terrorism in Afghanistan, caught a storm of backlash when he wrote an Op-Ed last month about re-establishing law and order in cities that have been ravaged by rioters.
For starters, Cotton clearly stated in the editorial that the killing of George Floyd in police custody in May was a wrongful death; Cotton’s opinions on violence from rioters and his opinion on the unjust killing of Floyd are entirely separate.
“The rioting has nothing to do with George Floyd, whose bereaved relatives have condemned violence,” Cotton wrote.
The controversy circles around the senator calling on the military to intervene in the violence being carried out by rioters who have killed, burned and stolen from their own communities, all in the name of justice.
Cotton defended his call on the military by bringing up the case of retired African-American police captain David Dorn, who was shot by looters in St. Louis just for trying to prevent a local pawn shop from being raided.
Shortly after the publication of his Op-Ed, The New York Times backtracked from internal and external criticism from those offended by what Cotton had written. Some reporters even went as far as to say the senator’s writing put black reporters at the Times in “danger.”
Times reporter Nikole Hannah-Jones, a Pulitzer Prize winner and creator of “The 1619 Project,” said freedom of speech doesn’t give Cotton the right to say anything he wants to without being scrutinized.
“I am deeply ashamed that we ran this,” she wrote on Twitter.
This is the same reporter who defended the riots and lawless violence in the streets by saying, “Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence.”
Once The New York Times became the latest fatality of cancel culture, a spokesperson for the newspaper said the Op-Ed “did not meet our standards.”
James Bennet, then The Times’ editorial page editor, acknowledged he had not read the Op-Ed and shortly afterward resigned due to the increasing heat he drew for defending the article being published.
So what does this have to do with Sirajuddin Haqqani?
Well, when The New York Times says the Op-Ed did not meet its “standards,” it is important to see what does meet those “standards.”
In February, Haqqani apparently met The Times’ “standards” when the newspaper published his terrorist manifesto titled “What We, the Taliban, Want.” The American hit-piece read in one part, “The new Afghanistan will be a responsible member of the international community.”
President Donald Trump halted peace talks with the Taliban after a suicide bomber killed 12 innocent people, including a U.S. soldier. The Times allowed Haqqani to use his Op-Ed to portray the Taliban as the victim by saying, “President Trump called off the talks, we kept the door to peace open.”
Not only is Haqqani’s assessment of the Taliban’s murders grossly misleading; it also betrays the guidelines that The Times overly enforced on Cotton.
The Times states on its Op-Ed page that it is open to “anything well-written” and “fact-based” that its readers would find “worthwhile.” However, when it comes to Cotton writing on establishing law and order, the Taliban’s opinion seems to be more “worthwhile” than that of a sitting Republican senator.
The simple truth about The New York Times is that its so-called “standards” reek of hypocrisy. So much so that a mass murderer who inflicts pain upon innocent people for a living can publicly voice his opinions, but a Republican who served his country and wants the internal violence in America to end is chastised.
The unfortunate truth is that this is not the first time The Times has let an outlandish Op-Ed slip through its “standards.” For instance, what about the newspaper’s 2014 Op-Ed titled “Pedophilia: A Disorder, Not a Crime“? In fact, Hannah-Jones also faced criticism from many historians on her inaccurate description that protecting slavery was a primary reason for the Revolutionary War.
My question is: What do a terrorist, a defender of pedophiles and a misinformed reporter have in common? My answer: They aren’t conservative. Studies have shown the anti-conservative bias growing. As evidence, a survey by two Indiana University professors reported that the number of reporters who identified as Republican dropped from 18 percent in 2002 to 7.1 percent in 2013.
For conservatives, this isn’t a huge shocker. We knew the media almost always lean left; we knew they hated Trump and wanted Hillary Clinton as president in 2016. And when it came out that 96 percent of political donations from members of the media were going to her campaign, we weren’t surprised.
The difference is that conservatives aren’t weak enough to cower to a culture dictated by canceling, wokeness or emotions fueled by propaganda rather than facts. The liberal media no longer are in the journalism business. The liberal media are in the business of hurting the conservative agenda at whatever cost.
Whether or not you agree with Cotton, the evidence is clear: This is just plain and simple media bias. It doesn’t take a scholar to see that allowing a leader of the Taliban to use The Times as its platform while trampling on a Republican senator completely discredits The Times.
Not only are its warped publications harmful to its audience — at the end of the day, it is just poor journalism.
The views expressed in this opinion article are those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by the owners of this website. If you are interested in contributing an Op-Ed to The Western Journal, you can learn about our submission guidelines and process here.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.