After President Trump’s election, his opponents rushed to subscribe to the New York Times because the truth was more important now than ever. Now they are cancelling their subscription because of an opinion column on climate change by the new right-leaning columnist Bret Stephens.
Some liberals were outraged when the New York Times published Stephens’ column that compared election pollsters’ confidence that Hillary Clinton would win to climate scientists’ assurances that climate change will be catastrophic disaster. Many unhappy readers vented their frustration on social media and said they were cancelling their subscription.
https://twitter.com/seankent/status/858117328143212544
Why I cancelled my @nytimes subscription. @BretStephensNYT pic.twitter.com/A3lFZNJdhY
— Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf 🌏 🦣 (@rahmstorf) April 27, 2017
Climate scientist Michael Mann cancelled his subscription and urged others to use the hashtag #ShowYourCancellation.
Folks, it appears that the @NYTimes wants you to PROVE your subscription cancellation.#ShowYourCancellation
RT https://t.co/a1MyFOM9z1— Prof Michael E. Mann (@MichaelEMann) April 25, 2017
https://twitter.com/frankejames/status/857066616093253632
Important to cancel.@nytimes sided with climate deniers and labeled climate science left-leaning. #ShowYourCancellation, "cancel ny times" https://t.co/OUseD5zAHP
— Susan Hatch (@SusaHatch) April 29, 2017
https://twitter.com/myviennasausage/status/857071596862709761
Even some of Stephens’ colleagues have mocked their employer’s decision to publish his column.
<starts stress eating> https://t.co/V790Re8mmy
— Michael Roston (@michaelroston) April 28, 2017
https://twitter.com/SopanDeb/status/858049000968249347
The Times‘ editorial page editor released a statement that defended the decision to publish the op-ed.
Here's the statement of NYT editorial page editor James Bennet about Bret Stephens' op-ed on climate change. pic.twitter.com/gJ0RSqc0le
— ErikWemple (@ErikWemple) April 30, 2017
I call it a proper cleansing of the kooks from the NYT subscribers’ list. Liberals always claim they are tolerant of other people’s views until they hear other people’s views.
I don’t fully blame the readers of the NY Times, as they have been conditioned by the NY Times itself. For example, it is the only paper I know of where every comment in the Comments section are moderated. Most news sites moderate for bad language, but don’t stop a post that doesn’t have bad language. The NY Times moderates every comment for an ideological litmus test, as I have numerous times posted content after articles, and the moderators there have never once allowed my opinions through. Even though my posts are respectful, lack foul language, and only differ from the author of the article I have yet to see my opinion be allowed. This type of silo Comments section that only allow a single ideology will naturally cause their readership to think that everyone on the planet thinks the way they do.
Read more at The Washington Free Beacon