New York Times

Outraged Americans Attack The New York Times For Outing Whistle-Blower As CIA Agent

The New York Times is finding itself in a massive battle with its subscribers as people are taking to social media with the hashtag #CancelNYT, after the newspaper published specific details about the White House whistle-blower that kick started Nancy Pelosi’s impeachment inquiry. The New York Times posted an article on Thursday evening identifying the whistle-blower as a male CIA officer who formerly was detailed to the White House. 

Three unnamed sources delivered confirmed accounts of the whistle-blower details to The Times, while the whistle-blower “himself” had nothing to do with it.  The lawyers of the anonymous source refuse to comment on the occupation status of the whistle-blower as a means of protection, something the public believes the Times had complete disregard for. 

Earlier this week the whistle-blower submitted a formal nine page complaint report that accused the  White House of covering up a phone call between President Trump and President Volodymyr Zelensky of the Ukraine. The phone call took place in July and was in regard to Trump asking Zelensky to investigate not only the former Vice President Joe Biden, but his family as well, specifically his son Hunter Biden. This pushed Pelosi to file an official inquiry for impeachment. 

Embed from Getty Images

The U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi speaks over impeachment inquiry 

The Times revealed the most details about the whistle-blower since the complaint was filed, thus igniting a wave of angry Twitter users, who in a matter of minutes got #CancelNYT trending at number one worldwide. The intense response comes from a place of individuals knowing the severe consequences a whistle-blower will face if their identity is revealed. Many are mainly concerned for the safety of the John Doe who kick started a historic impeachment inquiry. 

“Our country’s heroes are worth far more than clicks and views. Doxxing the whistle-blower endangers the individual’s life, which is especially heinous considering the whistle-blower went through proper government channels. The NYT protects Trump sources better than this. #CancelNYT” tweeted Dr. Eugene Gu, who’s politically gauged tweets often get major media attention. 

A source from the Times defended the papers actions stating that the White House already knew that the whistle-blower was a CIA member before the article was published, and the information that was published still gave little to no details about the identity. Dean Baquet, Executive Editor of the New York Times, responded to the harsh online criticism with another article/series of tweets from the official Times Twitter. Stating that the limited information was necessary to prove to the public that the John Doe was a credible source, and not just some random individual who doesn’t like Trump. 

Embed from Getty Images

Demonstrators hold up letters reading “Impeach” during a rally held in support of impeaching U.S. President Donald Trump

“The role of the whistle-blower, including his credibility and his place in the government, is essential to understanding one of the most important issues facing the country – whether the President of the United states abused power and whether the White House covered it up,” said Dean Baquet

The Times has been trying their hardest to clean up the mess that is Cancel Culture coming for them, however, the paper was already under serious heat after reporting on a sexual assault claim made against Brett Kavanaugh. The report was filled with editorial blunders that failed to mention that the alleged victim didn’t comment to the Times on the details, and also had no recollection of the assault that the Times reported on. The Times is continuing to plead with the social media army, claiming that there’s already a war on journalists from the government and the public shouldn’t feed into what the administration wants, however, many are boycotting the paper using their own free will, and are just upset at the papers total disregard for human privacy.