TOM LEONARD: Why does America’s most smug newspaper have such a pathological aversion to Britain?

The hot-headed reporter for the latest edition of Serial, the hit American ‘true crime’ podcast run by The New York Times, can hardly contain his fury at Britain’s rampant racism and Islamophobia.

When his fellow presenter urges him to stop yelling at anyone who disagrees with him, he retorts, “I don’t care.”

He – an Asian-British student journalist named Hamza Syed – doesn’t care about impartiality in general in this jaw-dropping one-sided investigation into the ‘racist lie’ behind the Trojan horse scandal that broke in 2014 in Birmingham.

The hot-headed reporter for the latest edition of Serial, the hit American ‘true crime’ podcast run by The New York Times, can hardly contain his fury at Britain’s rampant racism and Islamophobia.

This nationwide controversy was sparked by an anonymous letter sent to the city council outlining a plot to take over the city’s public schools and run them along strict Islamic lines.

The letter was quickly dismissed as fake, but some of the claims it contained turned out to be genuine. Two official reports revealed that Muslim teachers and governors were, indeed, guilty of attempting to Islamize schools.

The eight-part podcast series finds time for a myriad of criticism of these investigations, but not, for example, for the five Birmingham headteachers who went on to speak out about the bullying they faced from governors extremist Muslims as they attempted to impose Islamic practices.

Conflicting evidence – such as a WhatsApp chat group in which Muslim teachers described gay people as “satanic” and “animals” who should be burned alive – is either downplayed or omitted altogether.

But even shameless supporter Syed can see it looks bad when, during the investigation, he is taken to task by his colleague for writing to potential witnesses telling them he never believed. to any of the allegations and that he only wants to help other Muslims.

When the Duke and Duchess of Sussex alleged racism within the royal family, The Times broke the drums with not one but two long articles explaining to readers in the United States – home of segregation and the Ku Klux Klan – that many other black Britons knew exactly how Meghan Markle felt

When the Duke and Duchess of Sussex alleged racism within the royal family, The Times broke the drums with not one but two long articles explaining to readers in the United States – home of segregation and the Ku Klux Klan – that many other black Britons knew exactly how Meghan Markle felt

Their investigation, Syed concedes on air, now appears to be in the hands not of “impartial journalists”, but of a “biased mob”.

And it is so. But it’s true of much of Britain’s coverage by the so-called ‘Gray Lady’ – the nickname given to The New York Times in tribute to its reputation as a dry but authoritative ‘reference newspaper’. .

It’s a reputation that seems increasingly dated as the paper’s supremely judgmental leftist politics increasingly infect every page.

You might wonder why an American newspaper should be so interested in such parochial British history. But then you would ignore the NYT’s obsession with portraying modern Britain – especially since Brexit – as a country riven by prejudice, culturally backward, economically disintegrating and collapsing.

Does it matter? Yes. The NYT is still read religiously by those in power in the US – and as the UK seeks a trade deal with the US, the message from America’s most important newspaper would be: to what is it for?

Boris Johnson is the main target. Despite their glaring differences, he is lazily grouped by the newspaper with its most hated hate persona, Donald Trump. For the NYT, the Brexit vote and Trump’s election as president were synonymous.

If Britain could sue the NYT for libel, it would have a field day. Journalists and photographers seek out the most negative and depressing stories and images of life in the UK.

Boris Johnson is the main target.  Despite their glaring differences, he is lazily grouped by the newspaper with its most hated hate persona, Donald Trump.  For the NYT, the Brexit vote and Trump's election as president were synonymous

Boris Johnson is the main target. Despite their glaring differences, he is lazily grouped by the newspaper with its most hated hate persona, Donald Trump. For the NYT, the Brexit vote and Trump’s election as president were synonymous

Indeed, readers of The Times have been reassured for years that the UK is on the brink of total collapse. The deprivations of ‘Austerity Britain’ spawned its own series of articles in 2019 with dire headlines such as ‘Shrunken lives in the English countryside’ and ‘In Britain, austerity is changing everything’.

In the latter, a journalist visited Prescot in Merseyside and infuriated locals by wildly misrepresenting the extent of its woes, falsely claiming it no longer had a police station, library or museum.

Critics in the UK have also accused him of selective reporting on post-Brexit NHS nursing numbers, university applications and hate crimes. More recently, he devoted acres of space to castigating the UK for its handling of the pandemic.

Even British food is deplorable, apparently. In 2018, an NYT travel writer ridiculously claimed that London restaurant cuisine revolved around boiled mutton and porridge well into the 21st century. (He reported eating at ‘Mayfield’: he meant Mayfair).

The newspaper has many more opportunities for unsubstantiated smears on its commentary pages. A particularly heinous example was published in October 2018 under the title “I didn’t hate English – until now”.

No one could guess why its author, an Irish expat named Megan Nolan, chose to live in London, as she described the “toxic mix of dismissal and occasional disdain” she had endured.

After her spit-spattered invective drew a strong backlash from Irish and UK readers, she complained to the Irish Times that she didn’t write the headline and never used the word ‘hate’ .

It’s as if successive contributors are trying to outdo each other with their apocalyptic images of the UK. Last summer, a British commentator, Tanya Gold, reported that a man in Cornwall beat a seagull to death with a plastic shovel.

“If you like metaphors, England was the spade. Now that’s the seagull,’ she told the NYT pages. “No matter what Johnson says, nothing can dispel the feeling that we are a country in decline, moving into crisis.”

The latest chop, titled ‘Britain on the Brink’. . . The Prime Minister is in danger, but is the country also in crisis? released earlier this month.

Insiders say the NYT spends so much time attacking Brexit and the Tories because it wants to take on British readers of The Guardian.

But what struck some as particularly curious was that the criticism began under the watch of a Briton. Mark Thompson, former director general of the BBC, was chief executive of the New York Times Company from 2012 to 2020.

A shrewd political operator, Mr Thompson once described Brexit as an ‘ugly mess’ and, in a 2016 book, compared the tactics of the Vote Leave campaign to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels.

The NYT insists Mr Thompson had no editorial input, so the paper’s endless Brexit invective and his own strong views are therefore just a bizarre coincidence.

But what obsesses The New York Times most about Britain is racism. As far as the newspaper is concerned, the UK is awash in racial hatred.

When the Duke and Duchess of Sussex alleged racism within the royal family, The Times broke the drums with not one but two long articles explaining to readers in the United States – home of segregation and the Ku Klux Klan – which many other black Britons knew exactly how Meghan Markle felt.

Even when Sajid Javid was appointed Home Secretary in 2018 – the first British Asian to hold one of the top state offices – the NYT accentuated the negative with a story titled “A new face won’t change the racist heart of the British government”.

Even when Sajid Javid was appointed Home Secretary in 2018 – the first British Asian to hold one of the top state offices – the NYT accentuated the negative with a story titled “A new face won’t change the racist heart of the British government

Even when Sajid Javid was appointed Home Secretary in 2018 – the first British Asian to hold one of the top state offices – the NYT accentuated the negative with a story titled “A new face won’t change the racist heart of the British government”.

A NYT spokesperson told the Mail: ‘We are very proud of our work in the UK. Our groundbreaking and deeply reported journalism, across many platforms, is meant to serve the public and hold the government to account.

The Gray Lady has recently come under fire for advancing a controversial alternative view of US history, the so-called 1619 Project, which claims it really begins with the arrival of the first African slaves that year.

Historians have widely condemned it as inaccurate garbage that puts left-wing ideology ahead of facts. Looks familiar. . .?

About Timothy Ball

Check Also

Elon Musk Fans Slam Editor’s ‘Hypocrisy’, But Also End Up Supporting Her ‘Doxxing’

Elon Musk supporters slammed Atlantic News Agency writer and editor Molly Jong-Fast earlier on Tuesday …