Becket Adams writes for National Review Online about a major media outlet’s unusual approach toward an odious communist regime.
What is it with the New York Times and communists?
They really love those guys.
Just consider the paper’s high regard for communist China, especially when it comes to the Chinese Communist Party’s supposed efforts to combat climate change. Never mind that nothing China says or does in this area involves altruism or global well-being; China is simply exploiting the progressive creed, which it knows resonates with the international community, to expand its sphere of influence. Never mind also that China is the world’s leading emitter of carbon.
Sure, nothing China says lines up with what it does, but it says it so well, and that’s what counts, right?
“Asia Turns Back to Coal as War Chokes Off Natural Gas,” declared a March 18 Times headline.
More notable than what the piece says is what it does not say. In a 1,100-plus-word article about Asia returning to coal, it’s never mentioned that China is the region’s largest consumer of . . . coal. Not once. The only mention of China is incidental, as a producer of low-cost solar panels.
We shouldn’t be surprised by this omission. Hiding the ball is typical of the Times’ coverage of communist regimes.
Instead of recognizing the obvious — that China is a cunning economic powerhouse and that it’s laughing itself silly as its rivals in Europe and North America willingly dismantle their energy capabilities — the Times’ news and opinion sections portray China as the world’s caretaker — the undisputed leader in humanity’s fight for survival. …
… This isn’t just a fascination with China specifically. It’s a love and admiration for collectivism itself, a love bound by no race or border.
Recall that the Times spent decades reporting positively on the Soviet Union. Its infamous Moscow correspondent, Walter Duranty, used his position specifically to hide the empire’s brutality from the international community, including even the Holodomor famine. The Times didn’t disavow his reporting until 30 years after he had died.
