<!–

–>

September 30, 2023

The New York Times and the Washington Post have long been considered America’s journalistic icons, ably representing the professionalism and integrity of their calling, and deserving their places on the Olympic media peak.  I often praised and quoted them in my writings, and not because they published good stories with nice photos about me, members of my family, and our business, but because they deserved it. 

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609268089992-0’); }); document.write(”); googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.pubads().addEventListener(‘slotRenderEnded’, function(event) { if (event.slot.getSlotElementId() == “div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3028”) { googletag.display(“div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3028”); } }); }); }

But The Post and The Times have changed, and one can only argue about when the process of their degradation began.  Historically, both papers have represented the Democrats and the left, causing much Republican criticism.  As examples, Republicans during Reagan’s day called them “Pravda on the Hudson” and “Pravda on the Potomac,” respectively, but this name-calling was mostly a humorous jab.

Things changed dramatically after Donald Trump announced his first White House bid in the 2016 election.  Journalistic integrity and responsible reporting were thrown into the toilet and replaced by overwhelmingly fake news and stories.  Trump must be defeated, and all means were justified in achieving that goal, including Hillary Clinton’s grotesque “Russiagate” campaign to depict Trump as Vladimir Putin’s stooge.

When Trump won despite this onslaught, the whole of the Democrat machinery, including the NYT and the WaPo, was mobilized to destroy his presidency, together with his intention to turn U.S.-Russia relations from confrontation to cooperation.

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609270365559-0’); }); document.write(”); googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.pubads().addEventListener(‘slotRenderEnded’, function(event) { if (event.slot.getSlotElementId() == “div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3035”) { googletag.display(“div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3035”); } }); }); }

The American and Russian presidents’ joint statement:

The “Spirit of the Elbe” is an example of how our countries can put aside differences, build trust, and cooperate in pursuit of a greater cause. As we work today to confront the most important challenges of the 21st century, we pay tribute to the valor and courage of all those who fought together to defeat fascism. Their heroic feat will never be forgotten.

Had Trump succeeded, there would be no war in Ukraine and no threat of nuclear WW3, but both papers even supported Antony Blinken’s operation to blame the Hunter Biden “laptop from hell” story on Russia, helping Biden to win the 2020 election and taking us one step closer to war with Biden’s rejection of Russia’s December 2021 proposals for mutual security guarantees.  The key point in these proposals was a neutral status for Ukraine, with no membership in any military blocs, including NATO.  Biden had until February 23, 2022 to agree on this deal, but he rejected Russia’s proposals.  Here again, both the NYT and the WaPo applauded this approach. 

Below are relevant quotes from their top columnists, Thomas Friedman and David Ignatius, whom I often quoted and applauded in my Washington Times and other columns back in the late ’90s, when many of us still hoped for new, brighter, and mutually beneficial relations between the United States and post-communist Russia.

When the first round of NATO expansion began in 1998, Friedman interviewed one of the most distinguished American diplomats, George Kennan, who called NATO expansion a fatal foreign policy mistake:

‘It shows so little understanding of Russian history and Soviet history. Of course, there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are — but this is just wrong.’