The New York Times' Tolerance of Calls for Civil War and Political Murder

The New York Times would have us believe that it has always opposed violent political rhetoric. It is a sham, a lie.

The exhortation to political murder

In “New York Times Columnist Promotes Political Murder,” published just three days before the attempted assassination of President Trump, I pointed out that a regular Times columnist, John McWhorter, had called for the murder of President Trump. And when questioned about it by Glenn Loury, McWhorter’s remorse was limited — He emphasized that his regret was only that he said it in “a public space.” And he promised, “I’m gonna say it again.”

Since the July 13 attempt on President Trump’s life, the murder of Corey Comperatore, and the critical wounding of David Dutch and James Copenhaver, I have questioned whether we would see any apology from McWhorter or even any acknowledgment by the Times of its columnist’s calls for political murder.

You may not be surprised to learn that the answers are “No” and “No.”

The Times’ cynical and selective condemnation of violent speech

True to its tribal loyalties, most of the Times’ condemnation of excessive political rhetoric is directed at Republicans. For example, in November 2021, it published an article (updated in June 2023) titled “Menace Enters the Republican Mainstream.” It warned us that unidentified

historians and those who study democracy say what has changed has been the embrace of violent speech by a sizable portion of one party, including some of its loudest voices inside government and most influential voices outside.

In effect, they warn the Republican Party is mainstreaming menace as a political tool.

And in August 2022 the Times let loose with this: As Right-Wing Rhetoric Escalates, So Do Threats and Violence. Its author is Alan Feuer, who touts that his “focus” as a Times reporter “is on the criminal cases involving the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol and against former President Donald J. Trump.” And he makes clear that this focus is on Trump supporters:

[S]cholars who study political violence point to a common thread: the heightened use of bellicose, dehumanizing and apocalyptic language, particularly by prominent figures in right-wing politics and media.

The language of which Feuer and the Times disapproves includes this from Kari Lake:

This is truly a battle between those who want to save America and those who want to destroy her. That’s where we are at the moment. My question to you is: Are you in this fight with us?

That’s a long way from a call for someone to murder Joe Biden.

After the attempted assassination of President Trump and the successful murder of Corey Comperatore, the Times continued to worry about inflammatory language. But the rhetoric that the Times is concerned about is Trump’s language. Five days after the shootings, it published a column that condemned Trump’s exhortation to “Fight! Fight! Fight!” made just seconds after he had been shot.

It is all a partisan scam. The Times is not concerned about “violent speech,” “menace,” or bellicose, dehumanizing and apocalyptic language” when it comes from its own house.

The Times knew about its columnist’s calls for Trump’s murder.

I was not the only one who noticed McWhorter’s call for murder. In addition to Glenn Loury, multiple other outlets and sites picked up the story. Examples are here (“TDS Suffering New York Times Columnist: ‘I Wish Somebody Would KILL Trump’”), here (“N.Y. Times Columnist Wants Trump Dead — Seriously”), and here (“NYT Reporter Cuts to the Chase: I Wish Somebody Would Kill Trump”). There is no chance that the Times did not know about its columnist’s hateful and inflammatory statements.

The Times’ reaction to McWhorter’s call for a political assassination?

So, a regular New York Times columnist, whom they publish roughly every week, called for someone … someone to assassinate President Trump. And what has the Times had to say about that? Absolutely nothing. A search of the Times for articles or commentary condemning McWhorter’s statements turns up …. nothing. Zero.

The Times has not even mentioned the story or the comments by its own columnist. And their motto, “All the News That’s Fit to Print”? Hogwash.

A Google search for “mcwhorter apology violent rhetoric” did not disclose any apology or remorse by McWhorter, but it did yield this gem: “I’m going to be crazy here and say, ‘Let the civil war happen.’” Take a look for yourself.

I also searched the Times’ website for references to McWhorter, to see if they had even acknowledged his hateful rhetoric. They have not. But they have enabled him by continuing to publish his column. Five days after the shootings, the Times published this McWhorter column, “Why Are Democrats Speaking to America in Ancient Greek?” In this, his first post-shooting column, McWhorter did take issue with political rhetoric …. by Republicans:

As the Democratic Party mulls how to respond to the rhetoric emerging from the Republican National Convention this week, I dearly hope it does not continue to describe Donald Trump as a threat to democracy. That’s not because I disagree with that assessment or even because Trump just survived a horrifying attempt on his life. My complaint is not political, it’s linguistic: “Democracy” is an inert word.

McWhorter then recommended that instead of saying that Trump is “a threat to democracy,” it would be “more effective” to say that

“Donald Trump will keep you from voting for what you want,” or “Donald Trump wants to take power away from the people and keep it for himself.”

In my July 16 column referring to McWhorter’s call for someone to kill Trump, I asked whether the Times would “tolerate this kind of hateful rhetoric from a weekly columnist,” or whether the DEI regime would protect him. By its silence, the Times has answered those questions. Even after the attempted assassination, they don’t give a flip about a Times columnist calling for President Trump to be murdered, or even for a “civil war.”