"Conservative" columnist Ross Douthat of the New York Times sounded like he was committing editorial-page heresy on Saturday for claiming that Michael Cohen's testimony before Congress last week cast doubt on the validity of the Christopher Steele Dossier which has been the main pillar of the quickly dissipating Trump-Russia collusion conspiracy theory.
The one thing that all New York Times house "conservatives" are united on is their hatred of President Donald Trump. In fact, it is pretty much a job requirement. The New York Times will barely tolerate their slightly conservative (on a few topics) views but only if they express complete hostility towards Trump. Political diversity at the Times on the subject of Trump is absolutely taboo.
Jason Horowitz, the New York Times’ most showily left-wing political reporter, made common cause with a piece making the rounds of Catholic intellectual circles singling out “ultraconservative” Trump-supporting conservatives as dangerous, in “From the Vatican, a Warning Shot for Hard-Line Catholics in the U.S.”
New York Times columnist Ross Douthat, one of now two slightly right-leaning voices on the paper’s resolutely smugly liberal opinion page, penned “Notes on a Politcal Shooting” Sunday on the assassination attempt on House Republican Steve Scalise by a Bernie Sanders supporter. In his own diplomatic way -- his gentle tone a protective necessity to avoid riling the liberal comment section and Twitter mobs with his vile right-wingery -- Douthat got in some jabs at the liberal media. He also, sub rosa, chided the fake facts that appeared on the paper’s own editorial page regarding the shooting of Arizona Democrat Gabby Giffords.
The Nation’s Eric Alterman doesn’t mind that a few weeks ago, The New York Times added another conservative op-ed columnist. He just wishes it hadn’t been the “awful” Bret Stephens, who used to write for “the rubes who believe what they read in Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal” but now is tasked with impressing the “smarter and more sophisticated” readership of the Times.
Ross Douthat, the "conservative" David Brooks mini-me at the New York Times, wants President Donald Trump removed from office pronto. Although Douthat admits in his May 16 column that Trump has probably not done anything actually impeachable, he still wants him out of office because his supposed "childishness" offends him.
The New York Times version of political diversity is that even if you are a scorned "conservative" you can still be tolerated on their pages but ONLY if you are resolutely anti-Trump. A supposed conservative was recently hired by the Times but read this description about him in the very first sentence of this April 12 Politico story:
Lateral movement in one direction or the other routinely comes into play in sports. That’s not the case in sports media, which almost always go to the left. “Today, sportswriting is basically a liberal profession,” declared Bryan Curtis in a Thursday piece for The Ringer. Curtis noted that “Donald Trump’s election was merely an accelerant for a change that was already sweeping across sportswriting” and added, “Forget the viability of being a Trump-friendly sportswriter today. Could someone even be a Paul Ryan–friendly sportswriter…? ”
The New York Times and the Washington Post are chock full of "conservative" columnists who reflect the lack of political diversity in their newsrooms by being united in their opposition to Donald Trump. However, of all these "conservatives," there is one with the saving grace of at least being comically entertaining in that he consistently provides hilariously wrong predictions about Trump. He is Ross Douthat who is sort of a monastic mini-me version of his Times colleague David Brooks.
So just how wrong are Douthat's predictions? Let's just say they are in the category of Bob Shrum Curse wrong. And the funniest thing about Douthat is that no matter how many times he seems to swear off making predictions that make him look foolish...he always returns to make yet more foolish predictions. He just can't help himself.
New York Times right-of-center columnist Ross Douthat diplomatically but thoroughly documented the liberal bias and anti-Trump animus in the mainstream press. Of necessity, he avoided criticizing his own paper, but some of the shrewd points he made in “The Tempting of the Media” on Sunday certainly apply to journalists at his own paper. Douthat summarized “two common views among journalists about the fate of our profession under the presidency of Donald Trump,” one of a crackdown on independent journalism, the other “a golden age...for serious investigative journalism.” But he had another worry: "hysterical oppositionalism" to Trump.
The New York Times not only interviewed Donald Trump on Tuesday, they came out of the interview and made a 45-minute podcast about it. In that, reporters Maggie Haberman and Michael Barbaro demonstrated their liberal distance from the president-elect, comparing his demeanor at the start of the interview to an "unhappy kid." Haberman also suggested he seemed like a child in dismissing two Republican Senators who lost after walking away from supporting him for president.
A group of purported Catholic professors wrote an open letter on October 26, 2015 to "the editor of the New York Times" decrying a October 18 op-ed item about the Catholic Church by a conservative writer Ross Douthat. The letter, which was initially signed by 25 academics from Georgetown University, Villanova University, and other schools (the list has grown in subsequent days), claimed that Douthat "has no professional qualifications for writing on the subject," and "his view...has very little to do with what Catholicism really is." The objectors concluded, "This is not what we expect of the New York Times."