Cruz Spox: “If it lied deliberately—if the Times tried to slander the character of Senator Cruz and his publisher, knowing the charge to be false—then that goes directly to the journalistic integrity of the institution. How many other lies has the Times told?”
HOUSTON, Texas -- Last week, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz’s new book A Time for Truth sold more copies than all but two of the 20 books on the New York Times best-seller list. And yet, the Times refused to list Cruz’s book.
In an effort to deflect the widespread condemnation for their partisan blacklisting of the best-selling book, the New York Times made a specific—and false—attack on Cruz: that he had somehow engaged in “strategic bulk sales.”
In an unusual (and potentially risky) move for a major book publisher, HarperCollins explicitly called them out: “HarperCollins Publishers has investigated the sales pattern for Ted Cruz’s book ‘A Time for Truth’ and has found no evidence of bulk orders or sales through any retailer or organization.”
At that point, the Cruz campaign publicly called on the Times to either release their so-called “evidence” or issue a formal apology for impugning the integrity of Sen. Cruz and HarperCollins editor Adam Bellow.
Rather than do either, New York Times spokeswoman Eileen Murphy said the newspaper is “standing by” their previous falsehood regarding bulk purchases and offered a “no comment” when asked about producing evidence of the claim or issuing an apology to Sen. Cruz and HarperCollins editor Adam Bellow (NRO.com, 7/10/15).
As a factual matter, there are only two possibilities: (1) the Times possesses some mysterious, hidden evidence of bulk sales—that neither HarperCollins nor any other best-seller list could manage to discover, or (2) no such evidence exists, and the Times deliberately lied in order to hide their partisan bias.
“The New York Times holds itself out as the ‘newspaper of record,’” said Cruz campaign spokesman Rick Tyler. “If it lied deliberately—if the Times tried to slander the character of Senator Cruz and his publisher, knowing the charge to be false—then that goes directly to the journalistic integrity of the institution. How many other lies has the Times told? Are they only directed at Republicans? Under what circumstances does the Times believe it is appropriate for journalists to deliberately deceive the public?”
“If the New York Times desires to be seen as anything other than a partisan and dishonest attack dog for the far Left, then the only responsible course of action is either to release their so-called ‘evidence’ or to publicly apologize for making false charges. Silence—hiding from the truth—only screams confirmation that the Times intends to continue lying. Any journalist concerned about their institutional integrity should be embarrassed, and should demand corrective action.”