Niall Ferguson has written for it. Junot Diaz writes for it. Amy Chua cites it. Naomi Klein is often published in it.
It isn’t just a newspaper. It’s journalism often at it’s very best; often from the very top drawer.
The New York Times is a tradition and the very best names in the spectre of journalism have either written for it or are writing for it.
But for a daily, that’s about eloquence, wit and often as much about the both as it is about informing the world about shape-shifting developments in different corners of the world, coming under scathing criticism is something like a nightmare lived for real.
This is precisely what has happened in the realm of among the world’s most-read publications- The New York Times.
Currently receiving a lot of flak from all around, the New York Times is generating heat thanks to releasing a toon that showed a rather controversial scenario. In fact, it’s something so wickedly brilliant, yet funnily repulsive that it may annoy some people while making them enjoy it, at the same time.
Now, the time to take the rabbit out of the hat has arrived. No more guesswork- let’s come straight to the point.
The New York Times published a toon that showed Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin in the same frame and interestingly in a light-hearted lovey manner. The only problem was they were making gay-love as what’s been cited by the critics and haters of the same.
For coming out public with its slyly funny graphic gay love cartoon featuring Donald Trump- arguably the most widely-debated and berated American and Russian President and strongman Putin- the New York Times’ popularity and discussion may have both reached a strong northbound route.
What else can one possibly suggest? Isn’t it?
Possibly, none would’ve anticipated the response that the toon would’ve eventually fetched once released to the masses. But perhaps the artistic rendering showing two massively polarised political figures- highly egotistical and somewhat zealot-like- may have never taken into cognisance that it would spark a diatribe, particularly on the social media.
Where else does the one come together to show scourge or lament? Social media, but of course, isn’t it?
Some viewers of the cartoon- with a gay touch to it- were so particularly aggrieved by it that they could do nothing else but put the toon under the hammer of their venomous temper. For example, pay attention to comments like the following:
“This isn’t just intensely stupid it’s homophobic as all hell,’ a Pennsylvania Rep. Brian Sims, who is himself gay, tweeted.
Clearly, the artistic expression generated a clear hot-headed response from the gay community who shouldn’t be offended ever.
At the same time, one cannot help but ask the question- didn’t the revered newspaper know the massive risk it was about to undertake, showing two distinct if not popular personalities in the same light, albeit one marked by a notoriety of some sort?
It was strange. It was surely unanticipated and truly- it wasn’t expected from the famous New York Times- was it?
On the one hand, while the debate regarding Russia’s apparent meddling with the American politics- the Communist powerhouse having played its own secret role in deciding the outcome of the American elections is still a hot topic, widely debated from pillar to post on American soil (as also on the American media), on the other- it’s been continually denied by the alleged perpetrators- the Russian mainland, who else.
While the intelligence community on both sides may have a different view and maybe blaming one another, the foreign policy experts have so far remained divided on the issue of whether Russia did actually influence the eventual outcome of the 2016 elections that voted Donald Trump into full-fledged power.
The only thing that’s certain is that the result, to this date, reverberates around the world, often echoing the sound of America’s downfall or downslide.
There were other detractors who made no bones regarding the said incident concerning the New York Times.
‘It is implying that being gay is an insult for both of these men. It implies that being gay would emasculate them. It implies that calling them gay together would anger them and incite a reaction. This is beneath us,’ he added.