Critics Demand Apology from NYT for ‘Violence-Inciting’ Column on JD Vance
Critics took to social media demanding that the New York Times apologize for an opinion piece accusing former President Trump’s running mate, Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, of pushing “blood-and-soil nationalism.” The piece by New York Times opinion columnist Jamelle Bouie was initially published on Saturday with the headline: “JD Vance’s Blood-and-Soil Nationalism Finds Its Target.”
After outcry on social media, however, the Times changed the headline to “Shouldn’t JD Vance Represent All of Ohio?” Bouie’s message, however, accusing Vance of espousing “blood-and-soil nationalism” and suggesting he would progress past simply a “rhetorical war” against immigrants if elected vice president, remained.
Critics online accused the Times piece of inciting violence against Vance and essentially calling him a Nazi just two months after the assassination attempt against Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania. Vance’s wife, Usha, is the daughter of Indian immigrants. Other X users and the Vance campaign pointed to how the couple share three biracial children.
**Demand for Apology and Retraction**
Republican strategist Andrew Surabian expressed his outrage on social media, stating, “‘Blood and soil’ The @nytimes has now stooped to essentially calling @JDVance a Nazi. Truly vile stuff from the supposed paper of record – If they had any ethics at all they would retract this and apologize.”
Donald Trump Jr. also condemned the Times’ piece, highlighting the fact that JD Vance is the father of three biracial children, making the smear even more disgusting. He emphasized the insensitivity of such accusations, especially in the context of the recent assassination attempt on his father.
Vance’s national press secretary Taylor Van Kirk echoed the sentiments, calling the Times’ headline “disgusting” and raising concerns about the potential incitement of violence against Senator Vance. The Vance campaign and supporters demanded a retraction and an apology from the publication.
**Allegations and Response**
In the Times piece, Bouie criticized Vance for his comments about Springfield, Ohio, where residents have raised concerns about an increase in crime, mayhem, and car crashes following the arrival of approximately 20,000 Haitian immigrants during the COVID-19 pandemic. Allegations of Haitians killing and eating ducks in parks and pets circulated, although local officials denied receiving reports of such incidents.
Bouie accused Vance of focusing on the immigrants’ origins and appearances rather than their contributions to society. The columnist suggested that Vance’s rhetoric could potentially escalate to actions if he were to hold a position of authority.
Former State Department spokesperson Morgan Ortagus defended Vance, pointing out the rising antisemitism under the Biden-Harris administration and emphasizing Vance’s pro-Israel stance. She criticized the media for targeting Vance while ignoring the challenges faced by Jewish Americans.
**Support for JD Vance**
Support for JD Vance poured in from various quarters, with many condemning the Times’ article as irresponsible and dangerous. Alex Bruesewitz, a Trump campaign adviser, highlighted the unfair treatment of Vance and called for a retraction and apology from the media.
Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA, expressed his concern over the Times’ portrayal of Vance as a Nazi, linking it to the attempted assassination of President Trump. The narrative of violence and extremism surrounding Vance was deemed unjust and unwarranted by his supporters.
**Conclusion**
The controversy surrounding the New York Times’ column on JD Vance has sparked outrage and calls for accountability from the publication. Critics argue that the article unfairly paints Vance as a proponent of extremist ideologies, inciting violence and hatred against him. Vance’s supporters have rallied to defend his character and integrity, emphasizing his commitment to diversity and inclusivity. The demand for an apology and retraction from the Times underscores the importance of responsible journalism and the need to avoid sensationalism and inflammatory rhetoric. As the debate continues, it remains crucial to uphold ethical standards in media coverage and promote constructive dialogue on pressing issues in society.
