The New York Times demonstrated again this week that it remains solidly part of the cancel campaign culture. The Athletic, owned by the Times, joined the mob in calling for the Indiana Fever to dump Sophie Cunningham for publicly opposing biological males playing in women’s sports — a position shared by the vast majority of citizens.
The column by Candace Buckner blames Cunningham for creating a “circus” and says that she is a distraction from the game due to her public stance. So, she is now “too combustible, her takes too “turbulent” to play basketball.
Of course, if she supported transplayers, she would presumably not be combustible but admirable.
Notably, the Times does not view those who have attacked Cunningham and her fans as too “combustible,” including coaches wearing opposing slogans and statements in favor of biological males in women’s sports. The New York Times itself reported that almost 80% of citizens hold the same position as Cunningham.
The Oct. 6 column called on Indiana not to renew Cunningham’s contract after two seasons when she becomes a free agent because she is “too combustible.”
However, the Times does not believe that those coaches and players speaking out in favor of such inclusion are “too combustible.”
There was no call for sacking figures like Storm co-owner Celeste Keaton, who reportedly yelled profanities at girls who were simply supporting women in sports and Cunningham.
Nor was there a call to sack Minnesota Lynx head coach Cheryl Reeve for wearing a T-shirt supporting trans players in a game against the Indiana Fever and Cunningham.
Liberal sentiments are never combustible for the Times. The newspaper ran a long line of columns supporting Colin Kaepernick in his kneeling protests during games. Conversely, columns attacked former player Enes Kanter Freedom for wearing a T-Shirt reading “WOMAN noun. adult human female.”
For most of us, the hatred for Cunningham is baffling. These athletes have a unique perspective on this controversy that can help inform the debate on both sides. We should welcome the insights of athletes for and against transgender players in this national discussion.
Instead, Cunningham has been subject to the same hateful, unhinged attacks that we have seen on other influential figures such as J.K. Rowling. There is no room for civil debate or any difference of opinion.
The purpose of these campaigns is obvious. Even with the vast majority of citizens supporting Cunningham’s position, press and pundits want to deter others from publicly taking such positions. It is designed to chill speech and deter dissent.
On Friday’s episode of “No Hesitation with Sophie Cunningham & Drew Hanlen,” Hanlen correctly called the piece an “absolute hate piece.” Cunningham responded even more succinctly to the Times with “suck it.”
I am not concerned for Cunningham, who has shown great courage and steadfastness in the face of these critics. Rather, it was the latest evidence that the Times has changed little in fueling the mob and canceling opposing voices.
The Times has thrilled the extreme left with its signature relativism in defending any abuse on the left, from looting to murder. It has continued to feature violent extremists as political attacks rise around the country.
The same newspaper that fired editors and denounced Sen. Tom Cotton for his NYT column quelling violent protests would go on to print individuals who have said that they are ok with killing conservatives or capitalists.
Just before the anniversary of the Cotton controversy, the New York Times published a column by University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis, who defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence.
After canceling Sen. Cotton, the Times had no problem with publishing the views of a Chinese figure called the enforcer of Beijing in the crushing of protests.
The New York Times is undeterred because its readers seem to value the very hypocrisy revealed in these controversies. They can rely on the Times to offer spins and deflections to relieve them of any self-examination after tragedies like the Kirk assassination.
While denouncing disinformation, the Times has embraced false narratives and continues to publish distorted historical claims.
As with its cancellation of Sen. Cotton, the Times shows that the left is ready to resume the prior campaign of cancel campaigns and censorship of opposing views. That includes an athlete who merely voiced a view in favor of female athletes that is shared by roughly 80 percent of the country. It is not shared by the Times or its viewers, so (once again) Cunningham must go.
Opposing viewpoints are intolerable to many on the left, and the editors of the Times are once again rationalizing the worst impulses of American politics.
According to the politically congruent (“=”), there are two genders: cis and trans (e.g. homo, sim), and the male sex “=” female sex. What a drag show. It’s a Pro-Choice, Pro-Choice, Pro-Choice religious cult. Baby, maybe, baby.
The Fever would be in deep trouble if they parted ways with Sophie Cunningham. She is 2nd only to Caitlin Clarke in popularity, she loves Indianapolis, fierce pride in her team and protective of her team-mates. The Times and the Atlantic are Progressive Rags and not worth the ink they spill on their publications. I suspect few people in Indiana read the Times. Doubt its opinions have ever registered there.
The entire WNBA would be in trouble without this controversy. It is attracting viewers and that brings money. if the WNBA solves this issue – and no matter how they solve it they fade back into obscurity.
Did the New York Times really call for the Indiana Fever to dump Sophie Cunningham for publicly opposing biological males playing in women’s sports? Or did a single writer say the team shouldn’t renew her contract because she was “too combustible,” perhaps providing additional reasons Turley left out? Having played team sports, mostly basketball, most of my life, I can attest that individual and team success is mostly mental, and a player can become such a distraction that they harm the team’s performance. Turley put words in the pen of the writer, attributed them to the entire New York Times, and aimed his loyal followers like unguided missiles. He writes about the “age of rage” when, ironically, he is a major contributor.
Enigmainblack that you? Oh where to begin. Lebron James? Colin Kapernick? Dijoni Carrington? Alysa Thomas? Only Turley contributes to rage? And of course, whatabout good ole Al Sharpton? And finally William Spivey. Must be a black thing ya think?
“Turley put words in the pen of the writer . . .”
You have evidence for that smear? (Voices in your head don’t count as evidence.)
Voices in your head… yes it does! I mean, look at the commenters here. Some really unusual comments about a Christian god.
The evidence is in the article. Nowhere does the individual writer or the New York Times say what Turley says they do.
Um… what evidence. Is it in invisable ink?
EB – Fine. Lets assume that neither the NYT nor the writer said what Turley claims – then what is the purpose of the editorial ?
We are dealing with essentially a binary issue – either you accept MTF trans in womens sports or you don’t.
If you think there is some middle ground – please explain that to us ?
If Loomis and NYT are in favor of MTF Trans in womens sports – then minor errors in Turley’s representation of them mean nothing.
This reminds me of what an economist reviewing Mamdani and the rest of the DSA candidates said recently.
Most of them – and particularly Mamdani are very articulate and also very vague.
They answer questions like What is democratic socialism with remarks like government endeavoring to raise the dignity and self worth of the people.
Why libertarians do not beleivbe that is any of governments business – and for good reason, We are not in the majority because most everyone is in favor of magically solving all problems.
What we do not get answered by those on the left is HOW do you plan to do this. The DSA has a platform that people like AOC and Mamdani and El Sayed subscribe to that is literally marxist and absolutely impossible to defend rationally. But ask left wing political candidates a direct question and you get nested euphamisms.
I would personally be happy to advocate for socialism – if it actually worked. It does not, nor can it ever.
The way socialism fails has been predictable since the french revolution. Socialism is utopian and presumes that people are not just basically good – but entirely good and never act purely in their own interests.
Socialism gets bad leaders, specifically because there are always humans who crave power over others so much they will do or say anything in return for that power – and they will always eventually defeat the mother Theresa’s – if that is who you put in control.
Regardless EB – we are all tired of the poorly masked trojan horses. Very few are fooled.
I do not doubt that Trump seeks power. I do not doubt that he acts in his own self interests.
I do not doubt that he is seeking a form of immortality – to be remembered as a great president.
I do not doubt that he would lie to acheive that.
But Trump comes from business, and contra the left – you can play brutal power games, but if you do not keep your word you do not last long in business. That does not mean every i ust be dotted or t crossed.
It does not mean that “day one” requires an accomplishment on Jan 21, 2025. But it does mean that you must do what you promised eventually or your toast.
Those of you on the left rant this “war” is not what Trump promised – and that is correct. But he also did not promise a weak US and Iran getting a nuke. He promised no forever wars. The longer this goes on the more people he will lose. But contra the left this is early days. We were in Iraq and Afghanistan over 20 years.
If Trump resolves the Iran situation in a way that he can sell favorably – and mostly that means a more peaceful mideast and lower gas prices – not only will the few who have left him return, but independents and moderate democrats will flow to support him.
The same is true of many other aspects of Trump’s policies. If they work in the long run – he will be remembered in the way he wants. If they do not, he will mostly be remembered badly.
Are you willing to judge those on the left the same ?
PPACA has proven a disaster. This idiocy from the left that somehow that is republicans fault is garbage.
Free markets work even when governments try to kill them. If Leftist policies do not work in the real world – then they DO NOT WORK.
Are you prepared to rank Obama as the failure he was ?
His signature acheivement – PPACA is an expensive boon doggle rife with fraud.
It has made things worse not better.
His presidency had the worst long term growth since the great depression.
Worse still he took office near the bottom of a recession, he had nowhere to go but up, and he failed at that.
He promised to get us out of “forever wars” on “day one” – nothing had changed by the time Trump was sworn in.
He promised to close Guantanamo – he did not.
Can you name any promise Obama made that he actually tried to keep that was not a disaster ?
Explaining how the above is on topic – I do not care what Trump says, I do not care what NYT or Loomis says. I care what they DO and what actually happens.
If NYT gets what they want – women will have almost no oportunities in sports and almost no one will pay any attention to womens sports.
I expect Mayor Mamdani to be judged on what he accomplishes in NYC – not what he promises.
The same regarding Trump.
I hop[e and expect that none of these carcitures of Democrat left wing nuts are getting elected in a few weeks – because what they have said – recently and in the near past is absurdly stupid, but if by avoiding discussing HOW they are going to keep their promises they manage to get elected – I will judge them by what they DO not what they say.
“The evidence is in the article.”
In other words: Ya got nuthin’.
Blame Turley? I haven’t read or seen any acts of mass rage i.e., assaults, rapes, killings, against anyone or anything attributed to Turley and his readers. You know something no one else does?
What I said was Turley contributes to the rage he allegedly decries. If you want evidence, read the comments.
What anon wrote was, show us proof? Your proof, the comments are rage? Does that include yours too? Do yourself a favor, layoff the Koolaid.
It was not a trump supporter that killed brian thompson
It was not a trump supporter that killed Charlie Kirk
It was not a trump supporter that attempted to assassinate Trump – multiple times, or Kavanaugh
It was not even a Trump supporter who went after Nancy Pelosi’s husband, or Minesota Democrat law makers.
It is not Trump supporters who are ramming law enforcement with cars
The actual political violence in the US is entirely from the left.
Does what Trump says enrage those on the left – Absolutely – but anyone sayingf anything sane enrages those on the left.
Tell left wing nuts – No a Man can not become a woman and that enrages them.
Tell them womens sports are for real women and they foam at the mouth.
Tell them that the president is going to enforce the laws congress passed – and their faces turn purple.
Absolutely Trump enrages those on the left – because ANYTHING sane enrages the left.
How do Trump supporters respond to what Trump says ? Mostly they go and vote. They do not kill people. They do not riot, they do not even protest anymore – because the left will not judge protests on the right honestly.
Are many of them “angry” – disappointed in the mess those of you on the left have made is a better description .
But some are angry. But again they are not killing people. They are not rioting. They are not interfering with the enforcement of the law. They are not breaking the law. They are not assassinating people.
Does Trump enrage people ? Absolutely – those on the left by making rational promises and delivering.
Democrats are self destrucrive
And they want to take the rest of us with them. They are a threat to this country.
Democrats are Fascists
Magisterial stuff. The NYT shames its name and its readers with this cowardly pontification.
Shames, its doing what it readers want, serious news about American society. Nothing cowardly in that. But then, what is your definition of cowardly?
cow·ard·ly
/ ˈkouərdlē /
Adjective
Lacking courage: “The troll was cowardly for not fighting in Ukraine and thus sparing us his rants on Turley’s blog.”
Synonyms: lily-livered, chicken-hearted, loudmouth Democrat.
If it wasn’t for Cunningham and Clark the WNBA would continue to be just a novelty. There league still hasn’t accepted the offer from Clay Travis to play a team made up of high school seniors.
Continue? Those two are court jesters. Unserious athletes, just political activists bouncing around for a blood thirsty mob.
Okay well the columnist that shared her upside down opinion is the USUAL SUSPECT type in criticizing racial anomalies in sport. And yes Cunningham is a racial anomaly like her other recent compadres in the WNBA. Clearly Buckner sees a threat on the horizon called dilution if too many anomalies start infiltrating her long-time precious homogenous sport. I’ll bet if you pull press columns from the “early days” of integrated professional sports you will see very similar opinions and doom-saying about the issues of distraction, upset, and ruin of play. All NONSENSE and all sports are better for the FULL PARTICIPATION by talented people. Buckner is just the latest comer in the racist perspective parade.
By Full Participation are you okay with transgender males who identify as women to play in the WNBA?
Sophie Cunningham had the courage to defend her teammate Caitlin Clark from vicious fouls by opposing players. She has the courage to defend women and young girls in their desire to compete on a level playing field. She’s not meek; she’s bold. She doesn’t submit to a utterly irrational mob; she has a backbone.
She is being punished for those *virtues* — by revolting trans activists in a league that would have gone bankrupt years ago, where it not for the biological males in the NBA.
So are we now putting women on pedestals again?
Say wha…..?
I am shocked — shocked, I say — that The New York Times hasn’t decreed that their newspaper is a distraction from real world events and other matters of truth.
First, trans activism has replaced gay marriage as a fundraising gimmick. The NYT would never get between a Democrat activist and his denaro.
Second, this ain’t ice skating or synchronized swimming. So what type of women want to participate in a team sport identified overwhelmingly with men? Well, one answer is lesbians–lots and lots of lesbians–and with that, comes enough radical, leftwing baggage to fill a jumbo jet.
We’ll never get the WNBA to stop pushing leftwing nonsense. Radical women don’t swing that way. The Equal Rights Amendment struck out for similar reasons. A bunch of radical women started attaching a laundry list to it and voters baled. Wash, rinse, and repeat.
Hey, don’t be mad at me. I’m just calling balls and strikes here. The only thing for which I can be criticized is using mixed metaphors. Of that, I am guilty. Sorry, not sorry.
It’s safe to say women’s athletics is lgb and now includes trans. If Cunningham is hetero then she’s an enemy. Notice I refuse cis. Hetero and homo are fine and it’s all a distraction as the US falls.
Yep, as a woman of common sense and decency, Sophie is an outlier surrounded by liars.
Saint John the Baptist. Galileo. Martin Luther King, Jr. Charlie Kirk. Free speech never has been free. Sophie Cunningham is in good company. Thank God for those willing to pay the price.
Steve you never fail to amuse. Ironically you name people who are dead.
So now Cunningham should die to satisfy your crazed religious delusion?
Nothing more than a good burning at the stake to satisfy christian blood lust.
Anonymous,
MAGA seems to think that you and yours hate Christians and Jews. Are you trying to prove MAGA right?
Prove? You did Steve.
Lawyer huh?
Galileo and Cunningham in the same sentence. And you think liberals are the crazy ones Steve?
Stephen:
“Galileo and Cunningham in the same sentence. . . .”
I guess it’s too early in the morning for some to see the connection between:
Galileo: Punished for dissenting.
Cunningham: Punished for dissenting.
The New York Times wrote several pieces defending Colin Kaepernick’s decision to dishonor the national anthem when he chose to take a knee when it played. It caused turmoil in the NFL. Only around 30% of Americans approved when he first started doing the stunt.
The NYT did not care how divisive – or “combustible” – he was. They did not care how his actions were negatively impacting the fan experience.
But it pretends a pretty white woman who thinks the WOMENS National Basketball Association should be for actual women is too “combustible.”
No matter how much you despise the Left, it is never enough.
Saint John the Baptist. Martin Luther King, Jr. Charlie Kirk. Sophie Cunningham is in good company. Free speech never has been free. Thank God for those willing to pay the price.
So sacrifice Cunning on the alter of religious delusion in the name of free speech. A basketball player has become a god in the minds of religious fanatics while still alive. I guess if the left finally, somehow gets to burn her on a cross the christian delusion is satisfied.
Nobody is more hypocritical than today’s modern left. They cry about women’s rights while demanding women give up their seats to biological males, and move to the back of the bus.
These are not newspapers anymore, they more resemble religious pamphlets. It’s obvious and gross.
Pretty much the same that is happening here on this blog. Right?
Correction: “hypergolic zit.”
The “Gray Lady” — once claiming to be the site for printing “all the news that’s fit to print” — has finally metastasized into a common trollop street walker. The creature labels Cunningham “too combustible” to be tolerated, completely oblivious to the fact that it has itself morphed into a hyperbolic zit on the face of responsible journalism. Ochs would be ashamed, and rightfully so.
Well said.
I gave up on the NYT years ago when they began sneaking editorials onto the front page, under the cover of “News Analysis.”
Sam,
During the early stages of the 2008 presidential campaign, the NY Times published a front page article promoting Hillary Clinton and her economic policy. And she hadn’t even announced her candidacy yet.
So what? All the news that fits.
After being a reader of The New York Times for 60 years, I finally canceled my subscription a few months ago. The only thing I miss is the obituaries.
Another one with a death wish.
I am of two minds on this problem. Is this a type of mass hysteria on the left, or is it a calculated method to further destabilize the American population?
It can be, and I think it is, both.
Or is this a mass hysteria of right? That someone cogently and appropriately describes her as a troublemaker, and that’s hysteria? Again, or is this a mass hysteria of right?
gdonaldallen,
I think your question has two answers. As for the leaders on the left, it is not mass hysteria; it is a carefully calculated revolution. As for the followers on the left, it is not mass hysteria either; they find comfort in the mantra of their leaders. The simple truth is that it is comforting to believe that your dissatisfaction with your life is not your fault. And it also is true that people who excel at manipulating other people’s emotions, working together with people who control the news that people get to hear, make for a powerful force.
Or both. The answer to the NYT is to shun them and more importantly their advertisers. The market is the key.