Readers reportedly threatened to cancel their $17-per-month subscriptions to the New York Times due to its coverage of Queen Elizabeth’s burial.
The Times’ most recent item on Wednesday said that the burial expenses, which are expected to cost more than $6 million, would be covered by British taxpayers.
In light of Britain’s high inflation, the article called it a “hefty price tag,” but readers weren’t amused by the piece and criticised the reporting tone about the late 70-year queen.
“Your newspaper has consistently been filled with sarcasm over a story that isn’t yours.” Disappointing,” said Dorren Wilson on Twitter.
“I subscribed for five years, but you’ve shown that it was wise to let it go,” I said.
Wilson wasn’t the only Twitter user to criticise the Times; Robert Corbishley added that the cost to taxpayers would still be lower than the $7 paper.
He wrote, “Less per person than the cost of one copy of your “newspaper”.”
Another Twitter user named Tom Harwood pointed out that the British government has previously committed billions of pounds to combating inflation.
According to Harwood, “The Queen’s funeral [cost] will be a fraction of a fraction of that.” You ghouls are absolute.
Show some respect to the woman who dedicated her whole life to service, said another Twitter user with the username Siamese5.
Laughingly praising the Times’ findings, another Twitter user named Dave Birty wrote: “Wow, wonderful news, I believed the Queen’s funeral was going to be paid for by American taxpayers.”
Many others online, like Twitter user Steve Chadwick, expressed their gratitude for contributions to the Queen’s funeral costs.
It had been 70 years since the previous one, and he wrote, “I believe we’ve got this.”
The outcry came a week after the newspaper received flak for an article by Harvard University history professor Maya Jasanoff, who focused on the history of Britain and the British Empire and argued that it was improper to “romanticise” the monarchy.
As other journalists around the country joined her in criticising the late Queen’s rule, she stated, “The queen helped bury a terrible history of decolonization whose dimensions and legacies have yet to be truly recognised.”
The Cut from New York Magazine has been criticised the most for its coverage of the Queen’s passing and the British Royal Family.
The liberal publication that published a thorough interview with Meghan Markle, the Duchess of Sussex, in August recently took aim at King Charles in a new article that was posted online on Wednesday.
The most recent news item, headed “King Charles’ Reign of Fussiness Has Begun,” was published a few days before the Queen’s planned burial on Monday.
According to the story, Charles reportedly had two “tantrums” in the days after the death of his mother. A pen allegedly spilled on him at a signing ceremony in Northern Ireland, according to one account, while another said that he rushed out of the event while “trussed up in tails and shouting at palace officials who failed to clear a pen tray off his table with proper speed.”
The monarch seemed to signal his helpers to clear some space off his crowded desk.
The Cut continues by citing a Guardian article that said Charles decided to inform over 100 staff that he was firing them while he was getting ready to move into Buckingham Palace and at a funeral ceremony for his mother.
Everyone is tremendously furious, especially the top team and private secretaries, a source told the publication.
The piece ends with one of Meghan Markle’s many unsubstantiated accusations against Charles, claiming he was prejudiced against her son Archie and accused him of treating his wife, Princess Diana, with “mundane brutality.”
The Cut notably published an article headlined “I Won’t Cry Over the Death of a Violent Oppressor” not long after the Queen passed away.
Uju Anya, a professor of linguistics at Carnegie Mellon, was interviewed for the essay. On Thursday, Anya tweeted: “I heard the main king of a thieving, raping, murderous empire is finally dying.”
May her suffering be unbearable.
The Queen, according to Anya, “represents the worship of white femininity,” according to the Cut.
Anya, a professor of applied linguistics at the University of Pittsburgh, was born in Trinidad to a Trinidadian mother and a Nigerian father.
She claimed to be “a child of colonialism” and said that Britain’s involvement in the Nigerian Civil War had impacted her worldview, according to NBC News.
My earliest recollections are of living in a war-torn environment, and even now, reconstruction is still ongoing, she said.
She defended her anti-monarchy comments and said that the Queen was not above the choices the British government made, which “she monitored.”
Anya said that “Queen Elizabeth was a symbol of the religion of white femininity.”
As if she resided in this location or area in the imagination, this public image, as someone who didn’t have a role in the slaughter of her Crown, there is this idea that she was this tiny-old-lady grandmother type with her little hats and bags and small dogs and everything.