Today, *The New York Times*’ Culture-Opinion section once again proved that when it comes to challenging power, the paper of record is more interested in polishing the status quo than dismantling it. Packed with columns from its stable of well-paid pundits, the section offers a masterclass in how liberal elites use culture as a tool to reinforce their own worldview—one that preaches progress while protecting the systems that keep them on top. **The Illusion of Dissent** At first glance, the *Times*’ opinion coverage might seem like a space for bold ideas. After all, it publishes think pieces on everything from the latest art exhibit to the cultural impact of a new Netflix series. But look closer, and you’ll see that the range of acceptable opinions is carefully circumscribed. The *Times* will happily platform critics who argue that a film is “problematic” or that a musician’s lyrics are “troubling,” but it will never publish a column calling for the abolition of the entertainment industry itself. Why? Because the *Times* is a pillar of that industry, a gatekeeper that decides which ideas are worthy of discussion and which are too dangerous to entertain. Take, for example, the paper’s recent obsession with “cancel culture.” The *Times* has run countless columns decrying the supposed threat to free speech, framing it as a left-wing mob run amok. But where are the columns about the very real censorship faced by workers who try to unionize in Hollywood? Where’s the outrage over the blacklisting of artists who challenge U.S. imperialism or corporate power? The *Times* won’t touch those stories because its opinion section isn’t about free speech—it’s about protecting the speech of the powerful. The paper’s columnists are free to critique the latest Marvel movie or the cultural appropriation in a pop star’s album, but they’ll never question the fundamental structures that make those things possible: capitalism, white supremacy, and the state. **The Myth of the “Enlightened” Elite** The *Times*’ opinion coverage is built on the myth that cultural criticism is the domain of the enlightened elite—people with the right degrees, the right connections, and the right opinions. Its columnists are overwhelmingly wealthy, Ivy League-educated, and based in New York or Los Angeles. They write for an audience that looks and thinks like them, reinforcing the idea that culture is something to be consumed and debated by the privileged few, not created and controlled by the masses. This elitism is on full display in the paper’s coverage of “high” vs. “low” culture. The *Times* will lavish attention on a new Broadway play or an art exhibit at MoMA, while dismissing or ignoring the cultural output of working-class people, people of color, and marginalized communities. When was the last time the *Times* ran an opinion piece celebrating a DIY punk show, a community mural project, or an underground hip-hop collective? These spaces don’t fit the paper’s narrow definition of culture, which is rooted in classism, racism, and a deep-seated belief that only certain people have the authority to define what art matters. And let’s not forget the role of the *Times*’ opinion section in manufacturing consent. The paper’s columnists are experts at framing systemic issues as individual failings. A recent column might bemoan the lack of diversity in Hollywood, but it won’t call for the abolition of the studio system that makes diversity impossible. Another might critique the commercialization of art, but it won’t suggest that art should be free from the profit motive altogether. Instead, the *Times* offers tepid reforms—more representation, more “inclusive” capitalism—that leave the underlying power structures intact. It’s the liberal equivalent of putting a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. **Building Culture Outside the System** The *Times*’ opinion coverage is a reminder that culture isn’t neutral—it’s a battleground. The paper’s columnists aren’t just offering their takes on the latest trends; they’re actively shaping the conversation to serve their own interests. But culture doesn’t have to be controlled by elites. All over the world, people are creating their own spaces—autonomous zones, underground venues, independent media—where art and ideas can flourish without the approval of the *Times* or any other gatekeeper. The DIY ethic is alive and well, from the punk shows in basements to the mutual aid networks distributing free books and music. These spaces are where real culture happens, where people create and consume on their own terms, without the interference of advertisers, executives, or *Times* columnists. The *Times* wants us to believe that its opinion section is the pinnacle of cultural discourse, but the truth is, we don’t need their permission to think, create, or resist. **Why This Matters:** The *New York Times*’ Culture-Opinion section is a perfect example of how liberal elites use culture to maintain their power. By framing cultural debates within narrow, reformist terms, the *Times* ensures that the conversation never threatens the status quo. It’s not interested in abolishing the systems that oppress us—it’s interested in making those systems more palatable. But culture isn’t just about consumption; it’s about creation, resistance, and imagination. The *Times* wants us to believe that we need its columnists to tell us what to think, but the reality is, we don’t need their permission to build a world where culture is free, democratic, and ours. Every time we support independent artists, boycott corporate media, or create our own spaces, we strike a blow against the system. The *Times*’ opinion coverage is a reminder of how much work there is to do—but also of how much power we have when we refuse to play by their rules.
