New York Times and Philly Inquirer Show How the Media Polices Dissent
The New York Times editorial department decided to run a Senator Tom Cotton op-ed about stopping the riots. James Bennett occasionally does things like this, understanding that preaching to the choir all the time gets boring, even for the choir. Not that it changes the character and agenda of the paper any.
The Philly Inquirer then committed the grave sin of suggesting that maybe wrecking neighborhoods hurts people.
The organized lefty blowback showed up very quickly with internal staffer pressure groups demanding that both papers atone for their sins, that of Freedom of the Press, of allowing any perspective other than the dominant lefty narrative that the protests are a wonderful thing and that we should applaud the looting and burning as the force of social change shattering the evil American capitalist empire.
To many conservatives the media is a monolithic whole. And it certainly is monopolistic, and in some ways monolithic, but not entirely so. Like most lefty outposts, including academia, it got that way through peer pressure, internal ideological social networks (the sort of thing that HUAC was trying to fight in Hollywood), and the harassment of anyone who dissents to any smallest degree.
As we fight this good fight, it's important to understand how the enemy operates and the nature of its institutional controls.