It hasn't been that long ago that New York Times reporter Peter Baker caused fair-minded people around the country to do a spit take when he offered this complaint about Florida Governor Ron DeSantis:
It's almost kind of cute that Baker and others at the Democrat Party's leading propaganda dispensary (1) still consider themselves to be a "nonpartisan news outlet," and (2) still think they can convince people who aren't far left activists themselves of the same.
Remember, this is the outlet whose vision of what it means to offer a conservative viewpoint to readers is to hire David French to write columns blasting conservatives and explaining why liberals have good reason to distrust them.
So it's completely reasonable that our countrymen who still operate with a modicum of common sense and self-respect have long since stopped paying attention to The Times. But personally, I'm inclined to advise a different strategy. Amplify it.
Why? Take this hilarious publishing decision made last week, noted by Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy:
Not The Bee covered the story here:
If you are wondering why the only thing likely to save The New York Times print edition is a sudden surge in pet birds, this helps you deduce the answer. This story is humiliating on so many different levels.
First, how in the world could a story like this ever be deserving of front-page coverage? In the Bismarck Bee or Tupelo Times, maybe. But The New York Times? Consider that same day China threatened the Philippines, Arizona Governor Hobbs reneged on her state's decision to execute a violent capital offender, a U.S. Army soldier was sentenced to 45 years for plotting a terror attack against his own unit, Amazon completed laying off 18,000 workers and halted construction on their second headquarters due to economic uncertainty, and Russia was on the cusp of taking its first major city in Ukraine in six months.
But The Times went with the white supremacist helmet makers instead.
Secondly, if you take the time to read it, the entire premise of the story is obviously half-baked and utterly un-researched. I'm no horseback rider, but it took me 10 seconds on Google to find out that in order to be safe and effective, equestrian helmets have to be worn tightly, and pressing against the scalp. Meaning, the demands being made by the aggrieved "woman of color" in this story are unsafe. Furthermore, I grew up with a mom who barely stood 5 feet tall on a good day. She struggled her whole life to find both fancy and casual attire that fit her well. That wasn't because she was being discriminated against. It was because her size was outside the norm. In case you aren't aware, dreadlocks in the refined world of horseback riding are also outside the norm.
Thirdly and most significantly, Vivek is completely correct in saying that this story never gets published and certainly never gets near the front page if it weren't for the racial grievance angle. And if it's even possible, that may be the dumbest part of this whole sorry episode. Far from being oppressed or disadvantaged, the woman at the center of this story has owned a horse since she was a kid – one that she simply rides as a "hobby." She's now 27-years-old and made the decision to change her hairstyle to dreadlocks. She knew the kind of attire and equipment that was readily available, but still made the decision to change her hair to something she knew would represent a challenge. Fair enough, but now she wants to complain about the racism that makes her skull vulnerable to injury? She chose to change her hairstyle to one that likely nobody else in the equestrian world has, only to feign shock at the fact that headgear to accommodate such a rare hairstyle is in short supply? And she blames it on racism? And The New York Times finds it a worthy story for their front page?
Too funny.
Yes, I'm serious about that word choice. It's funny and we should say so. I know how many are tempted to get mad about the nonsense, but I truly believe the best approach is to let people like this young woman make their absurd claims, let the dinosaur media run with it, and then the rest of us sane people just point and laugh.
Don't fight this stuff; instead, amplify it and mock it relentlessly.
Maybe I'm alone with this, but I'd much prefer to not lose a single ounce of my joy over the grievance mongering madness that surrounds us. I'd rather just shake my head and point to a better way.
