Miss a day, miss a lot. Subscribe to The Defender's Top News of the Day. It's free.
On May 11, 1933, the New York Times reported on a Nazi book burning that targeted 18,000 works inconsistent with Nazi ideology. Books burned included those of Thomas Mann, Helen Keller and Ernest Hemingway.
Today, that same newspaper is figuratively burning books by using its New York Times Best Seller List to censor and suppress works inconsistent with the paper’s own narrow political views.
And as you’ll see, the big issue the Times cares about isn’t Left or Right — it’s the Public Health/Pharma Establishment.
Liberal Democrat Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Trump Republican Peter Navarro are both poster children for the Times’ reprehensible censorship.
What their two books argue, in clear conflict with the newspaper’s dogma, is that Big Pharma greed and Dr. Anthony Fauci’s corruption led to a fundamentally flawed pandemic response and, as a result, unnecessary deaths.
Navarro’s “In Trump Time” should have debuted at No. 3 on the Times’ list of bestselling books following its Nov. 3, 2021 release. With sales of more than 33,000 copies in its first week (according to industry-tracker NPD Bookscan), Navarro’s book outsold — by more than 3,000 copies — the book the Times actually listed in third place.
It also sold more than three times as many copies as half of the books listed on the Times’ Top 15 list that week. Nevertheless, it failed to make the list.
The Times’ treatment of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s book, “The Real Anthony Fauci,” has been far more egregious.
Kennedy’s blockbuster dwarfed the competition for the first two weeks after publication and should have been listed as the No. 1 bestselling nonfiction book. In the following five weeks, it should have ranged from No. 2 to No. 5.
But instead of allowing “The Real Anthony Fauci” its rightful ranking, the Times relegated it to No. 7 or No. 8 in each of those weeks.
In all formats, Kennedy’s book has now sold more than 800,000 copies. This is more than any other hardcover book in America during that period.
Why does this censorship matter?
As America’s paper of record and sine qua non of book lists, the Times’ “list” provides an important “signaling” function to book buyers of all walks of life that an important new book has been released.
When the Times wrongly omits a book or artificially pushes it down the list, the newspaper prevents inconvenient perspectives, arguments and information from reaching the book’s rightful audience.
Whether the Times disagrees with the point of view espoused by a particular book must not be relevant to placement on its bestseller list.
In this case, Navarro, a Harvard Ph.D. and economist, and Kennedy an anti-corruption attorney, probably disagree about many things. But each raises troubling and important questions about the COVID response and the mass vaccination program that Kennedy has researched meticulously, and that Navarro helped develop during his time at the White House.
For the Times to suppress dissent over life-and-death public health issues is not just unconscionable, it’s dangerous.
Many of the alleged “facts” we’ve been force-fed by the Times and other mainstream media outlets since the pandemic began have turned out to be either false or misleading.
Nevertheless, the Times calls Kennedy’s book “misinformation” and likely feels proud of its role in censoring the book’s allegations of corruption against Fauci. This is true despite the fact that the book includes 2,194 citations and has supportive testimonials from prestigious doctors, scientists, and lawyers — even a Nobel Prize winner.
Undoubtedly, the Times feels similar pride regarding its role in stifling the claims Navarro makes in his book.
Americans have always prided themselves on the broad protections provided by the First Amendment. And, in times of crisis, we need more voices and more dialogue, not less.
Failure to dig deeply into so many unresolved questions about the pandemic response may well lead this country to repeat the errors Kennedy and Navarro illuminate in their books
In the past, people perused The New York Times Best Sellers List because they believed it represented an honest and accurate account of what people across the country were reading.
Today, that list has devolved into a recommended reading list — a tool used to promote confirmation bias, suppress alternative arguments and encourage readers to read books consistent with the Times own agenda and narrative.
This practice argues against both-sides-journalism in favor of “the truth” — without exploring the issue of who gets to decide what the truth is.
While this doesn’t rise to the level of book burnings, it is certainly a step in that direction.
While it’s not outright fascism, it clearly represents a blow to democracy.
As a publisher, I actively seek books that are well-written and represent important contributions to current debates and public discourse, especially when they seem disturbing to those who would suppress them.
I support the free flow of information, offer full access to competing views and arguments, and bring interesting narratives into the world.
I’m fighting hard against the wrong-headed belief that it’s okay to censor ideas, stifle debate or cancel writers merely because you disagree with them or dislike them or because they are threatening to powerful economic interests.
Americans should not retreat from nearly 250 years of hard-fought progress toward greater liberty. Once lost, these rights and freedoms will surely be difficult, if not impossible, to reclaim.
