The New York Times has acknowledged the detrimental impact of school closures and the shift to homeschooling during the pandemic on children. Notably, the newspaper refrained from questioning the closure of schools when it was happening, opting instead to amplify fear-based perspectives and marginalize, vilify, or neglect dissenting voices.
Prominent medical professionals and scientists who questioned the prevailing narrative were publicly discredited as “conspiracy theorists” by certain “journalists.” However, the NY Times has recently taken a different stance, releasing an op-ed titled “The Startling Evidence of Learning Loss Is In” over the weekend.
According to the article:
“The evidence is now in, and it is startling.
“The school closures that took 50 million children out of classrooms at the start of the pandemic may prove to be the most damaging disruption in the history of American education.
“It also set student progress in math and reading back by two decades and widened the achievement gap that separates poor and wealthy children.”
Nevertheless, the revelations in the op-ed are hardly surprising for anyone who has been reasonably observant over the past 3 ½ years. The New York Times, more than three years late, has finally allowed the acknowledgment of what was evident from the outset. Yet, those who dared to express such views in 2020, 2021, or even 2022 were subjected to various ad hominem attacks.
Individuals questioning the anti-science narratives propagated by the mainstream media were immediately branded as racists, conspiracy theorists, eugenicists, ableists, science-denying alt-right Trump supporters, flat earthers, or Nazis. While the NYT has now decided to broach this subject, the harm has already been inflicted on both American children and dissenters who challenged the fear-inducing narratives.
A significant portion of this harm can be attributed to the data-dismissing corporate media narrative that disregarded actual science and facts. Additionally, the New York Times overlooks its own role in contributing to these detrimental outcomes. Despite the foreseeable consequences, the newspaper failed to scrutinize the issue and instead propagated “the science” based on pharmaceutical press releases, teachers’ unions, and government leaders bowing to the influence of public health bureaucrats.
