Normally I am loathe to ever cite the New York Times for anything, but this is one case where it needs to be done.
The gist of the story is that when Jeffrey Epstein got out of jail in 2009 after serving 13 months of an eighteen month sentence, he embarked on a media campaign with the goal to restore his image. With that in mind, his publicist (Christina Galbraith) that was masquerading as a, “science writer,” published an article on three websites; Forbes, HuffPost, and the National Review. These articles painted Epstein as a philanthropist that had a big interest in science in order to start to rehabilitate him.
My question is: Why would National Review publish an article that praised Epstein when they must have known that Epstein had just got out of prison for sex crimes and pedophilia? Below is how National Review senior editor Rich Lowry addressed the issue.
“We took down the piece, and regret publishing it,” Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review since 1997, said in an email. He added that the publication had “had a process in place for a while now to weed out such commercially self-interested pieces from lobbyists and PR flacks.”
Lowry’s statement to the Times does not address why they thought it was a good idea to publish a puff piece on a convicted pedophile in the first place. From the Never Trump issue, to the article that smeared the Covington kids, to now this new screw up, it is becoming increasingly clear that the National Review is not the right’s friend and as each year passes, they slide further and further towards joining the left and becoming our enemies.