Need any more evidence The New York Times has given up appealing to Middle America and is concentrating on satisfying its left-wing anti-Trump rump? Behold Wednesday’s Food section, ominously pitched as “A collaboration with the New York Times climate desk” and left a bitter ideological taste. The appropriately green front cover introduced readers to a hectoring litany of questions: “Does what I eat affect climate change?” “Should humans stop eating meat altogether?”
Inside the 12-page special edition were questions dear to liberal Times readers (including tons of Manhattanites who could reduce their carbon footprint by moving to Nebraska): “So are you saying I should become a vegan?”
The reporters do note the results of “organic produce” and recycling have been decidedly mixed, but those findings don't encourage environmental moderation, only more extremism: “Should I Be Composting?” and “How Does Your Love of Wine Contribute to Climate Change?”
Another story suggested “These Five Cuisines Are Easier on the Planet.” The first line to Somini Sengupta’s story: “Can I eat well without wrecking the planet?” Later she would insist “No question, some of us must eat less meat.”
Reporter Melissa Clark sounded like a mother trying to get her son to clean his plate: “The Climate-Friendly Vegetable You Ought to Eat.” The answer that no one was looking for: Kelp, the yummiest seaweed!
The infantilization carried on into the smiling illustrations of cartoon food accompanying the quiz on the back page, “How Does Your Diet Contribute to Climate Change?” It included this sniffy line, which should hurt the feelings of all decent carnivores: "Picking steak for dinner -- defined here as a full 4-ounce serving -- pretty much guarantees that you end up in this high-impact category for the day.”
A full four ounces?
The paper has used condescending baby talk before when talking about climate change.