NY Times Writer Definitely Isn’t Trying to Cancel Meghan McCain, Just Wants You To Know Why (and How) to Do It

The New York Times ran an op-ed on Thursday attacking Meghan McCain as being a “problem” for ABC’s The View.

The hit piece, framed as TV criticism, was a slash and burn job aimed at McCain’s increasingly conservative politics. It prompted some backlash on the right, to include from Meghan herself.

The pointedly headlined article, written by culture writer Shamira Ibrahim, begins with a brava and heroic recounting of Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s recent View appearance, a big hit on the left, during which the candidate was dismissive of McCain’s objections and essentially ignored her in favor of the friendly questions from the show’s liberal hosts.

With a link to a tweet, Ibrahim described Warren’s “sly and effective tactic” of dodging McCain; “a deft rebuffing” of “multiple attempts to interject,” she writes. “Ms. Warren never skipped a beat while ignoring Ms. McCain until she was prepared to engage in discussion with her on her own terms, to raucous applause.”

It is a revealing choice for the opening argument. It is meant to be illustrative, and so it is.

Because the intent of the op-ed — to argue that McCain challenging of liberals is inherently “disruptive” and objectionable — is not a hidden intent, or at least not a very well hidden one. The “some viewers” fig leaf, for example, is thinner cover than a Members Only jacket, and doesn’t suit its wearer half as well.

“For some viewers,” writes Ibrahim, cough cough, “Ms. McCain is the privileged product of conservative nepotism, capitalism, and the American military-industrial complex.”

Wow, those are some viewers, alright. Ibrahim, for the New York Times, continues. “That coalescence naturally renders her a villain to progressives, who envision her as the cathartic personification of a punching bag on social media.”

There is, of course, inoculation against accusations of canceling (to no apparent avail in the ex-media category.) “Conversely, each pile-on reinforces her base with a narrative of the long-suffering victim of censorship.”

There is no padding of doubt for “some viewers,” but the idea of censorship is swaddled in blankets of “her base” and the “narrative”, with some extra-snide packaging like “long-suffering victim” to really finish of the package nicely.

It continues in this vein, taking pains to emphasize and repeat the notion that nobody is trying to silence McCain or have her fired or replaced, and that such ideas and stories are merely a narrative, a fantasy used cynically for advantage and sympathy.

Oh also, though, Ibrahim has offered to the reader the opportunity to sign a petition to have McCain fired and replaced.

Nevertheless, the article — with a subheading that reads “The daytime co-hosts’ heated bipartisan debates are played down as disagreement among friends. But the strain for ‘civility’ is tiring” — isn’t presented as being focused on why liberals and progressives do and should hate Meghan McCain. Instead, it purports to argue that her “vitriol” causes “tension” behind the scenes.

Beyond the assertion of there being behind-the-scenes problems, there is no description of that tension or examples of it. Ibrahim cites the departure of Abby Huntsman as the sole example of this off-camera problem. She notes that no claim was made, but links to “rumored discord.” (Rumor is a good word, considering it’s based entirely on Page Six and Daily Mail gossip.)

Although Ibrahim offers no other examples of problems behind the scenes, she does offer multiple examples of the show and its hosts denying that there are problems, followed swiftly by Ibrahim making it clear that nobody should believe those statements.

Every combative segment is immediately countered by a claim that it’s all just a harmless debate among friends, making the ostensibly organic on-air confrontations feel all the more performative, no matter how genuine the sentiment.

The much-ballyhooed “some viewers”, otherwise referred to as “many”, aren’t buying it, you see.

This “agree to disagree” stance is frustrating, and lies in stark contrast with the current political moment, when many are skeptical of the idea of civil discourse and who it is meant to benefit.

In truth, nothing about these recent viral incidents is either civil or revelatory, no matter how many avowals are made to that claim. And there’s a sense that some of the audience — which in recent years has included women in the 25-54 demographic watching at home and those who view the viral clips online — is growing increasingly weary of the farce.

Ibrahim, who is not arguing for canceling McCain you will surely be sure to note for sure, argues that McCain’s arguing with guests and co-hosts “undercuts the substantive political critique” one expects from … The View.

The sly tactic in the op-ed, no doubt effective with the intended audience, is to frame the opinion as a critique of the show.

The View is failing its viewers because of the tension and abrasiveness of this host. Just this host, though, identified as conservative, who is apparently arguing with herself. No word is spared for the liberal panelists, NOT identified as such, including the famously abrasive — scratch that, among Democrats, it’s not called “combative” or “abrasive” but rather “outspoken” — the famously outspoken Joy Behar.

Ibrahim concludes by stating that this is not what Barbara Walters had in mind when she created the show, and that what is on air now, does not live up to Walters’ sign-off message each day back then, “Have a great day, everyone, and take a little time to enjoy the view.”

“The problem is, with Ms. McCain still on the show, there’s not much to enjoy,” said Ibrahim. Who is not, you will most certainly realize and accept, trying to get McCain canceled or replaced.

Opinion contributions are not the view of the paper to which they are submitted or in which they are printed, you and everyone else will be quick to note. But if The View‘s problem is the views of Meghan McCain, then so too the views of this culture writer about The View‘s problems are become the problem of the New York Times. If the View has a McCain problem, the NYT has a cancel culture problem.

At least, that’s what some readers say.

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.