Coronavirus gives the New York Times another excuse to bash Britain

Of course most people don’t read the New York Times. But the paper retains a certain cachet in America, and undoubtedly directs a lot of public thinking in that country, if not further afield. Which is why the paper’s anti-British animus (which has been noted here before) is worth highlighting.

The trend has been going on since 2016, when the NYT seemed to have decided that the Brexit vote led the way for the election of Donald Trump. Since then the paper’s desire to attack Britain has appeared insatiable. A fact that leads the paper’s readers to be woefully ill-informed about this country. I for one have been fairly regularly struck by the number of otherwise intelligent and subtle Americans I know who seem to think that Boris Johnson is (at best) president Trump’s evil twin and (at worst) a demagogic populist on a par with the great dictators. Invariably the cause is the NYT.

In the last month, there have been some especially fine examples for those of us who retain a morbid interest in the paper’s anti-British obsession. Especially its desire to draft in anyone at all (even if they are wholly obscure) just so long as the hired help does the necessary hit job on the UK.

During the middle of last month the paper ran a piece by a Guardian contributor whose specialism appears to be the Middle East. Rachel Shabi’s piece certainly seemed to be written by someone whose understanding lies elsewhere. Because her attempt to guide the American left through the UK reaction to the coronavirus was fantastically inept. It consisted primarily of an attack on the UK press for focussing on the health of the Prime Minister (then just out of intensive care) rather than haranguing the government for not having the foresight afforded to the average Guardian contributor.