The New York Times’ Love Affair With Tyrants

Photo by Jorge Rey/Getty Images

So there is a huffy editorial from the New York Times this morning, titled In Meeting Erdogan, Trump Courts Another Tyrant. In which the Times editorial board gnashes their teeth over President Trump’s meeting with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey. The president, solemnly sayeth the Times, has a “weakness for ruthless authoritarians.”


Let’s take a stroll down memory lane, shall we?

Back there in the long-ago ages of November 2017, The Times took the occasion of the 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution in October of 1917 to celebrate Communism in a series of articles collectively called Red Century: Exploring the history and legacy of Communism, 100 years after the Russian Revolution.

What the President is about is making sure that American kids are not heedlessly being flung around the world in endless wars trying to remake the world.

The series was composed of articles that absolutely swooned over the “ ruthless authoritarians” who were the murderous tyrants of Communism, the philosophy that would lead to the murder of millions. Take a look at some of the titles here:

  • What if the Russian Revolution Never Happened? Which says admiringly: “One hundred years later, as its events continue to reverberate and inspire, October 1917 looms epic, mythic, mesmerizing.”
  • How Mao Molded Communism to Create a New China – In which Mao has admired both a tiger and a “monkey king” – the latter described as “an imaginary being with the strength of a superman, an ability to fly and a predilection for using his immense cudgel for destructive purposes. He is a sage. Ordinary humans and even spirits cannot defeat him.” 
  • What Killed the Promise of Muslim Communism? – Which mourns the fact that a “full century after the Russian Revolution, the failed alliance between Communism and Islam continues to shape the politics of the Muslim world.”
  • Socialism’s Future May Be It’s Past: Communism Was a Dead End, But We Can Reclaim Socialism- Which proclaims: “Stripped down to its essence and returned to its roots, socialism is an ideology of radical democracy.”
  • Lenin’s Eco-Warriors – In which the founding tyrant of the Soviet Union is praised as an environmentalist. 
  • Why Women Had Better Sex Under Communism – Fabulous sex – as long as Stalin didn’t murder you.
  • Why George Bernard Shaw Had a Crush on Stalin – In which Shaw idolizes Stalin for creating his Soviet utopia.

There’s more. But you get the point. For the New York Times, it was ahhh the romance of Communist revolutions! Long live Chairman Mao! Lenin loved nature!

READ: Leftist State Media Hits Hannity, Conservative Media

Then there were the cases of Times journalists Walter Duranty and Herbert Matthews. Duranty was the Moscow Bureau Chief for the Times between 1922 and 1936. The Times so loved Duranty’s reporting that the paper submitted it for a Pulitzer Prize, which he won in 1934.  The problem? Duranty was an ardent admirer of Stalin, and deliberately ignored Stalin’s forced famine that was inflicted on the Soviet people – particularly in Ukraine –  killing millions. Duranty’s response: ”You can’t make an omelet without breaking eggs. It took the Times until 1990 to write a piece admitting of its now long-dead Moscow bureau  chief that in reality, Duranty’s affection for the Soviet tyrant produced “some of the worst reporting to appear in this newspaper.”

Then there was Times reporter Herbert Matthews. His tyrant-of-choice was Cuba’s Fidel Castro, whom he lionized in the pages of the Times, saying things like this:

“There are no Reds in the Cabinet and none in high positions in the Government or army in the sense of being able to control either governmental or defense policies. The only power worth considering in Cuba is in the hands of Premier Castro, who is not only not Communist but decidedly anti-Communist…”

As if that weren’t bad enough, the paper spent decades demanding the United States restore diplomatic relations with the “ruthless authoritarians” know as the Communist dictators Fidel and Raul Castro. The paper cheered when President Obama did exactly that.

In other words? For The New York Times, which has a long history of a “weakness for ruthless authoritarians” – Communist tyrants of the most brutal and murderous kind –  to be lecturing that President Trump has some sort of thing for tyrants is utterly laughable. What the President is about is making sure that American kids are not heedlessly being flung around the world in endless wars trying to remake the world.

Or, simply put, America First.