‘Are there no depths to which New York Times won’t stoop in its anti-British propaganda?’: Fury at ‘woke’ US newspaper’s ‘sneering attack’ on the monarchy as readers cancel subscriptions over article on taxpayers ‘paying for Queen’s funeral’
- NY Times has received yet more criticism over its coverage of the Queen’s death
- Paper has long been accused of displaying a haughty ignorance of life in the UK
- Critics said it was worth spending pennies per person to honour a life of service
- The Queen’s funeral: All the latest Royal Family news and coverage
The New York Times has been accused of plumbing new depths in its campaign of ‘sneering’, ‘anti-British propaganda’, as an article revealed – with apparent surprise – that it would be up to UK taxpayers to pay for a funeral for their own head of state.
The story labeled it a ‘hefty price tag’ amid rampant inflation in Britain, but readers were unamused, with some announcing they were cancelling their subscriptions following a barrage of attacks on the monarchy within days of the Queen’s death.
America’s ‘paper of record’ has long been accused of displaying a haughty ignorance of the reality of life in the UK, with reports in recent years suggesting Brits spend their time ‘cavorting in swamps’ and, until recently, existed on a diet of ‘porridge and boiled mutton’.
For many, its latest report only confirmed this impression, with Andrew Neil suggesting it wasn’t exactly revelatory to point out that a funeral for a head of state who had served with unfailing duty for 70 years would be funded by that country’s taxpayers.
‘Amazing scoop from the New York Times reveals that the Queen’s funeral will be paid out of taxation,’ he tweeted. ‘Must be a first for any head of state anywhere. Or … maybe there are no depths to which the @nytimes won’t stoop in its anti-British propaganda.’
The New York Times has received more criticism over its reporting of the Queen’s funeral, including a new report noting – with apparent surprise – that it would be paid for by taxpayers
Andrew Neil suggesting it wasn’t exactly revelatory to point out that a funeral for a head of state would be funded by that country’s taxpayers
Former London Assembly member Peter Whittle was similarly damning of the piece, writing: ‘I can do without the fake concern of the @nytimes It’s hatred of Britain is now pathological.’
Author Ben Judah wrote: ‘Let me fix the headline for you @nytimes — ‘Queen Elizabeth II’s funeral, which will involve elaborate processions, vigils and rituals, will cost 5p per household.’
Others pointed out that the Queen had served the UK and the Commonwealth with remarkable dedication and loyalty for 70 years so was entitled to a state funeral.
British conservative commentator Nile Gardiner added: ‘The sneering attacks on Britain and the Monarchy from The New York Times and America’s hate-filled woke Left are tedious, nasty and unpleasant.
‘They may appeal to a small audience of elite Socialists, but the vast majority of Americans, who love the Queen, will not be impressed.’
Tom Harwood, another political commentator, noted that the British government was already committing billions of pounds to tackle inflation.
‘The Queen’s funeral [cost will] be a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of that,’ Harwood wrote. ‘You absolute ghouls.’
Readers have also attacked the paper for its recent coverage. One tweeted: ‘Your coverage of the Queen is a disgrace, the story also does not belong to you. Giving up my 10 year subscription.’
Tom Williams wrote: I am cancelling my online @nytimes subscription tomorrow. The bizarre anti-UK shtick is just so tedious. I understand why they do it – clickbait for both sides of the political divide – but people want to pay for quality.’
The financier Ben Goldsmith said he had done the same.
The backlash came a week after the paper garnered criticism over an article by Maya Jasanoff, a history professor at Harvard University, where she said it was wrong to ‘romanticize’ the crown due to Britain’s colonial history.
‘The queen helped obscure a bloody history of decolonization whose proportions and legacies have yet to be adequately acknowledged,’ she wrote in the piece, published hours after Her Majesty’s death.
New York Magazine’s The Cut has been seen as the biggest offender over its coverage of the Queen’s death and the British Royal Family.
Critics accused the NY Times of yet another ‘sneering attack’. Others pointed out that the funeral will cost individual taxpayers a matter of a few pennies
The left-wing magazine, which published an in-depth interview with the Duchess of Sussex, Meghan Markle, in August, has recently targeted King Charles in a new piece that was published online on Wednesday.
The latest story is titled: ‘King Charles’s Reign of Fussiness Has Begun,’ and comes days before the Queen’s funeral, which is scheduled for Monday.
The article points to reported that a grieving Charles went through two ‘tantrums’ in the days after the death of his beloved mother.
One was about him reacting angrily during a signing ceremony in Northern Ireland when a pen leaked on him, and another described how, at his accession ceremony, he ‘trussed up in tails and hissing at palace aides who failed to move a pen tray off his table with due haste.’
The king apparently gestured to aides to help him to make some room on a cluttered desk.
The Cut went on to mention a report from the Guardian in which it was alleged that Charles chose to tell close to 100 employees that he was letting them go as he prepares to move into Buckingham Palace during a memorial service for his mother.
A source told the newspaper: ‘Everybody is absolutely livid, including private secretaries and the senior team.’
The article concluded with one of Meghan Markle’s many unproven allegations that a member of the Royal Family was racist about her son, Archie. It also accused Charles of ‘mundane cruelty’ to his wife, Princess Diana.
Some readers have announced they are cancelling their subscriptions following a barrage of attacks on the monarchy within days of the Queen’s death
Infamously, shortly after the Queen’s death, The Cut published an article titled: ‘I Won’t Cry Over the Death of a Violent Oppressor.’
The piece was an interview Carnegie Mellon linguistics professor Uju Anya who tweeted on Thursday: ‘I heard the chief monarch of a thieving raping genocidal empire is finally dying. May her pain be excruciating.’
Anya told the Cut that the Queen was a ‘representative of the cult of white womanhood.’
Anya, an applied-linguistics professor at the Pittsburgh university, is the daughter of a mother from Trinidad and a father from Nigeria.
She told NBC News that she is ‘a child of colonization,’ and that her perspective was shaped by Britain’s role in the Nigerian Civil War.
‘My earliest memories were from living in a war-torn area, and rebuilding still hasn’t finished even today,’ she said.
She defended her remarks opposing the monarchy and added that the Queen was not exempt from the decisions made by the British government ‘she supervised.’
Maya Jasanoff, a Harvard professor specialising in the history of the British Empire, wrote for the NY Times last week that it was wrong to ‘romanticize’ the Queen’s rule
‘Queen Elizabeth was representative of the cult of white womanhood,’ Anya said.
‘There’s this notion that she was this little-old-lady grandma type with her little hats and her purses and little dogs and everything, as if she inhabited this place or this space in the imaginary, this public image, as someone who didn’t have a hand in the bloodshed of her Crown.’
New York Magazine’s The Cut, which published an in-depth interview with Meghan Merkle, has been seen as the biggest offender over its coverage of the Queen’s death
Anya, an applied-linguistics professor at the Pittsburgh university, is the daughter of a mother from Trinidad and a father from Nigeria.
She told NBC News that she is ‘a child of colonization,’ and that her perspective was shaped by Britain’s role in the Nigerian Civil War.
‘My earliest memories were from living in a war-torn area, and rebuilding still hasn’t finished even today,’ she said.
She defended her remarks opposing the monarchy and added that the Queen was not exempt from the decisions made by the British government ‘she supervised.’
‘Queen Elizabeth was representative of the cult of white womanhood,’ Anya said.
‘There’s this notion that she was this little-old-lady grandma type with her little hats and her purses and little dogs and everything, as if she inhabited this place or this space in the imaginary, this public image, as someone who didn’t have a hand in the bloodshed of her Crown.’
Uju Anya, a black applied-linguistics professor at the Pittsburgh university, said on Friday: ‘Queen Elizabeth was representative of the cult of white womanhood’
Shortly before the Queen’s passing was announced on Thursday, Anya tweeted that she hoped her death would be ‘excruciating’
Source: Read Full Article
