The New York Times Is Absolutely Roasted Over The Coverage Of The Queen

Something is rotten in the state of Great Britain — at least, that's what The New York Times is reporting, which has led to critics calling the newspaper a tool of "anti-British propaganda" (via Twitter).

On September 8, the newspaper published an op-ed by Maya Jasanoff, a history professor at Harvard University. Titled, "Mourn the Queen, Not Her Empire," Jasanoff wrote that "the queen helped obscure a blood history of decolonization whose proportions and legacies have yet to be adequately acknowledged." This includes Ireland, where Jasanoff writes that "[w]e may never learn what the queen did or didn't know about the crimes committed in her name."

Continuing what one critic called a "disappointing" coverage of a "story that doesn't belong to [them]," The New York Times turned their attention to the cost of Queen Elizabeth II's funeral, scheduled for September 19. The article — "The queen's funeral will be paid for by British taxpayers" — speculates about the cost of the state funeral, given the one-two punch of rising consumer prices and 10% inflation.

But The New York Times isn't the only American media outlet publishing criticism of the British monarchy. CNN angered viewers with its slight against Willam, Prince of Wales, and Catherine Middleton, Princess of Wales. The Cut's recent story, "King Charles's Reign of Fussiness Has Begun," includes reporting from The Guardian about a recent layoff of "close to 100 employees" from Buckingham Palace. According to one source, "everybody is absolutely livid, including private secretaries and the senior team."

Coverage of the United Kingdom by The New York Times has been raising eyebrows since before Queen Elizabeth's death. Writing for The Times, Oliver Kamm points out that The New York Times "has for years striven to alert its readers to the backwardness of modern Britain," which has accelerated since Liz Truss became prime minister. 

Examples of the alleged campaign against the United Kingdom by The New York Times that Kamm lists are a 2018 article "complaining of the difficulties of finding a restaurant menu that diverged from our national staples of billed mutton and porridge," and calling the Hackney Marshes in east London "swamps."

In response to The New York Times article about the cost of the queen's funeral, Kamm took to Twitter to question the outlet's "vendetta." Other readers were less willing to hear the newspaper's reasons for what they see as negative coverage. GB News' Tom Harwood tweeted they were "absolute ghouls" and pointed out that Queen Elizabeth II's funeral will cost "a fraction of a fraction of a fraction" of the $100 billion commitment the British government made "to help with the cost of living."

Others were quick to point out the cost of presidential inaugurations, held every four years in the United States. As one critic pointed out in a tweet, former presidents receive police protection and then state funerals when they die. "Stay out of other countries business," they advised.