© 2022 - USMAIL24.COM. All Rights Reserved.
The New York Times faced another wave of criticism over coverage of Queen Elizabeth’s funeral, with readers now threatening to cancel their $17-a-month subscription.
In Wednesday’s latest story, the Times reported that British taxpayers would foot the bill for the funeral expenses, which are said to cost more than $6 million.
The story labeled it a “hefty price tag” amid rampant inflation in Britain, but readers were not amused by the article as it hit the tone of reporting on the late 70-year-old monarch.
“Your paper has been unfailingly full of snark about a story that is not yours. Disappointing,” Twitter user Dorren Wilson wrote.
“I’ve signed up for five years, but you’ve confirmed it’s wise to let it go.”
The New York Times has been criticized more for coverage of the Queen’s funeral, noting that it would be paid for by British taxpayers
Readers took to social media to condemn the tone of the reporting just days after Queen Elizabeth’s death, ending her 70-year reign
Wilson wasn’t alone in her criticism of the Times, fellow Twitter user Robert Corbishley said the cost to taxpayers would still be lower than the $7 paper.
“Less per person than the price of one copy of your ‘newspaper,'” he wrote.
Tom Harwood, another Twitter user, noted that the UK government has already pledged billions of pounds to tackle inflation.
‘The Queen’s Funeral’ [cost will] a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of that,” Harwood wrote. “You crooks.”
Another Twitter user with the handle Siamese5 also condemned the Times, writing: “Show some respect for the woman who gave her life to serve.”
Dave Birty, another Twitter user, sarcastically applauded the Times for its coverage, tweeting, “Wow, unbelievable news, I thought the Queen’s funeral was going to be paid for by US taxpayers.”
Twitter user Steve Chadwick echoed many online saying they were happy to help pay for the Queen’s funeral.
“It’s been 70 years since the last — I think we’ve got this,” he wrote.
The backlash came a week after the paper criticized an article by Maya Jasanoff, a history professor at Harvard University, where she focuses on the history of Britain and the British Empire, saying it was wrong to take the crown. to ‘romanticize’.
“The Queen helped cover up a bloody history of decolonization whose proportions and legacies have not yet been sufficiently recognized,” she wrote as other reporters across the country joined the example to criticize the late Queen’s government.
Many called The Times disrespectful, saying British taxpayers were only too happy to help pay the Queen’s funeral expenses
The Times story was the latest in a slew of American articles on the Queen’s death and funeral that were criticized for the tone of its coverage.
Maya Jasanoff, a Harvard professor who specializes in the history of the British Empire, wrote for the Times last week that “romanticizing” the Queen’s rule was wrong.
New York Magazine’s The Cut is seen as the biggest culprit over coverage of the death of the Queen and the British Royal Family.
The Liberal magazine, which published an in-depth interview with the Duchess of Sussex, Meghan Markle, in August recently focused on King Charles in a new piece published online on Wednesday.
The last story is titled: ‘King Charles’s reign has begun’ which comes days before the Queen’s funeral, which is scheduled for Monday.
The article points to reports that Charles went through two “tantrums” in the days following his mother’s death. One was the report that he stormed out of a signing ceremony in Northern Ireland when a pen leaked onto him, another was when he “stuck in tails and hissed at palace staff who failed to open a pen tray with the necessary haste.” off his table. ‘
The king apparently gestured for assistants to help him make room on a cluttered desk.
The Cut goes on to cite a report from the guard alleging that Charles chose to tell nearly 100 employees he would let them go as he prepares to move to Buckingham Palace during a memorial service for his mother.
A source told the paper: “Everyone is downright furious, including the private secretaries and the senior team.”
New York Magazine’s The Cut, which published an in-depth interview with Meghan Merkle, is seen as the biggest culprit over coverage of the Queen’s death
The article concludes with one of Meghan Markle’s many unproven allegations against Charles that he was racist towards her son, Archie, and accuses him of “everyday cruelty” towards his wife, Princess Diana.
Notoriously, shortly after the Queen’s death, The Cut published an article entitled, “I Won’t Cry Over the Death of a Violent Oppressor.”
The piece was an interview with Carnegie Mellon professor of linguistics Uju Anya, who tweeted on Thursday, “I heard the supreme ruler of a thieving raping genocidal empire is finally dying. May her pain be unbearable.’
Anya told the Cut that the queen was a “representative of the cult of white femininity.”
Uju Anya, a black professor of applied linguistics at the University of Pittsburgh, said on Friday: “Queen Elizabeth was representative of the cult of white femininity”
Shortly before the Queen’s death was announced on Thursday, Anya tweeted that she hoped her death would be “unbearable.”
Anya, a professor of applied linguistics at the University of Pittsburgh, is the daughter of a mother from Trinidad and a father from Nigeria.
She told NBC News that she is “a child of colonization” and that her perspective was shaped by Britain’s role in the Nigerian civil war.
“My earliest memories were of living in a war-torn area, and reconstruction is not complete even today,” she said.
She defended her comments against the monarchy, adding that the Queen was not exempt from the decisions of the British government “which she oversaw.”
“Queen Elizabeth was representative of the cult of white femininity,” Anya said.
“There’s this idea that she was a little old-lady-grandma type with her little hats and her purses and little dogs and everything, as if she inhabited this place or this space in the imaginary, this public image, as someone who that did’ I have no hand in the bloodshed of her crown.’