The New York Times Race-baits Country Music

The New York Times’ recent opinion piece, “Country Music Is Entirely at War With Itself,” has ignited a significant controversy across cultural and music commentary circles. This article has been widely perceived as a biased and ill-informed attempt to politicize and racialize a complex cultural landscape, drawing substantial backlash for its sweeping generalizations and divisive rhetoric. The commentary has been criticized for not only peddling egregious factual inaccuracies but also for employing language and framing that many observers have characterized as “race-baiting.”  

When analyzing the New York Times article’s specific linguistic choices, such as the”all boys” epithet or the differential capitalization of racial terms, these do not appear to be accidental stylistic quirks. Instead, they present as calculated rhetorical maneuvers designed to provoke a reaction and frame a racialized narrative… Which was quite obvious from the jump.

This deliberate choice of inflammatory language, rather than objective analysis, strongly suggests an intent to stir anger or resentment, which directly fulfills the criteria of race-baiting. The underlying pattern observed here is a dangerous shift from nuanced cultural commentary to ideologically driven provocation, where the goal is to polarize rather than to inform.  

Fabrications and Misrepresentations: The House of Cards

The New York Times opinion piece is not merely flawed in its interpretation; it is riddled with factual errors and misleading assertions that fundamentally undermine its credibility and expose a profound lack of informed research.

Beyoncé’s Cowboy Carter: Misunderstanding Artistic Intent and Genre

The New York Times article cites Beyoncé’s Cowboy Carter solely as a Grammy-winning country album and asserts it is definitively “country”. This assertion directly contradicts Beyoncé’s own explicit statement on March 20, 2024: “This ain’t a country album. It’s a Beyoncé album”. This sentiment was widely echoed by other reputable outlets, including NPR, The Washington Post, and The Ringer. Furthermore, Cowboy Carter was conceived by Beyoncé to explore and redefine Americana through the lens of its Black roots, specifically spotlighting overlooked contributions of African Americans to diverse musical genres, Southern and Western culture, and American history. And we are all about it, the album deliberately blends various Southern sub-genres, including zydeco, rock and roll, folk, rhythm and blues, psychedelic soul, and bluegrass. Cool.

The New York Times’ insistence on labeling Cowboy Carter as purely “country” though, despite Beyoncé’s explicit statement and the album’s expansive artistic intent reveals a problematic form of genre policing which has been a long standing issue for all music writers, artists, fans or anyone else who feels the need to “define.” art.

The “Genre-Switching” Fallacy: Mischaracterizing Artists like Snoop Dogg and Lana Del Rey

The New York Times column suggests Snoop Dogg is “going country” and implies similar wholesale genre switches for Ed Sheeran and Lana Del Rey, framing this as a significant trend. However, the available information clarifies that Snoop Dogg merely performed “a song with Ernest” and has made no pronouncement of intent to switch genres. Similarly, Lana Del Rey’s recent releases, such as “Henry, Come On” and “Bluebird,” are accurately described as a “gentle exploration into country and Americana influences” and a “notable pivot towards country music,” marking an “evolution” rather than a complete genre switch.  

The New York Times’ broad claim of “genre-switching” for diverse artists like Snoop Dogg, Ed Sheeran, and Lana Del Rey demonstrates a superficial understanding of contemporary music trends. Artists frequently engage in genre-bending or one-off collaborations without abandoning their core identities. By framing these nuanced artistic explorations as wholesale “switches,” the article simplifies complex musical evolutions into a convenient, predetermined narrative that supports its political agenda, rather than reflecting the fluid reality of modern music.

The Erroneous Political Timing of Country’s Resurgence

The New York Times column asserts that “American pop culture typically goes country when the White House goes Republican”. This claim is demonstrably false. The genre-crossing albums from Beyoncé and Post Malone, as well as country efforts by Ed Sheeran and Lana Del Rey, were instigated and released during the Biden Administration. The popular country resurgence, therefore, began during the Biden years, not since Trump took office.  

This attempt to link country music’s pop crossover to Republican presidencies despite clear evidence to the contrary, reveals a blatant partisan bias that attempts to politicize cultural phenomena. This is not merely a factual error; it is an ideological projection. By fabricating a correlation where none exists, the article betrays its role as an objective cultural commentator, instead functioning as a vehicle for a predetermined political narrative. This undermines its journalistic integrity and exposes a willingness to distort facts to fit an agenda.

The “Holy Trinity” Fallacy: Ignoring Key Figures and Industry Dynamics

The article identifies Jelly Roll, Morgan Wallen, and Zach Top as the “holy trinity of artists widely lauded for country music’s resurgence”. This assertion is factually inaccurate and highly misleading. Zach Bryan, although once again a “genre” issue has had significantly more success than these artists in terms of streams, sales, and touring. He is conspicuously omitted from the “holy trinity.” His omission appears strategic, as his rise occurred outside the traditional Nashville system, which would directly undercut the article’s argument about industry anointment. Additionally, major figures like Luke Combs and Lainey Wilson, who have won Entertainer of the Year trophies, are also notably absent from this selective discussion.  

The deliberate selection of a “holy trinity” that pointedly excludes more commercially successful and critically acclaimed artists like Zach Bryan, Luke Combs, and Lainey Wilson is not an oversight. It represents a strategic omission designed to reinforce the article’s core “white, male saviors” and “industry anointment” narrative. By cherry-picking artists who appear to fit a specific racialized and gendered critique, the article constructs a false premise to support its argument. This demonstrates a manipulative use of facts, where data is chosen and presented not to inform, but to confirm a pre-existing ideological bias, thereby fundamentally misleading the reader about the true landscape of country music.

Distorting Artists’ Origins and Industry (e.g., Jelly Roll, Zach Top)

The article claims Jelly Roll, Morgan Wallen, and Zach Top “are anointed by the industry as the genre’s white, male saviors”. This claim is demonstrably false for Jelly Roll, who had nearly 20 years as a hip-hop and rock artist with a massive, organic following before transitioning into the country market. His rise was championed by media outside of country music, including The New York Times’ own pop writer Jon Caramonica, directly contradicting the idea of industry “anointment”. Similarly, Zach Top was “absolutely not” anointed by the industry; he is a traditionalist on an independent label who gained viral social media momentum that the industry subsequently acknowledged.  

By portraying their achievements as products of an industry system, the article attempts to fit them into a preconceived narrative of systemic racial or gender bias, where “white male saviors” are artificially propped up. This not only distorts the reality of their careers but also undermines the agency and independent efforts of artists who gain traction outside traditional industry channels, further demonstrating the article’s commitment to a preconceived narrative over factual accuracy. This manipulation of artists’ journeys is a key component of the article’s flawed perspective.

The Simplistic View of Country Music as a Monolith

The New York Times article implicitly treats country music as a monolith, solely centered in Nashville, and as a unified, politically and racially-motivated “White project”. This monolithic portrayal, however, ignores the genre’s complex, diverse historical roots , its various subgenres, and the increasing racial and gender diversity within its contemporary artists and fanbase.  

The portrayal of country music as a homogenous “white project” is a critical oversimplification that serves a clear rhetorical purpose. This monolithic framing disregards the genre’s rich, diverse origins, its various subgenres, and the increasing diversity within its contemporary artists and fanbase. By reducing a complex cultural phenomenon to a singular, undifferentiated entity, the article can more easily paint it with a broad, negative, and racialized brush, reinforcing stereotypes and facilitating condemnation rather than fostering nuanced understanding. This simplification is a rhetorical tool used to create a clear “other” for the purpose of a divisive narrative.  

Contradictory Arguments on Music Distribution

The column states, “There is no longer a penalty for going country, thanks in part to the way streaming has unlocked country music from country radio,” but then immediately contradicts itself by saying, “Country music has a tighter lock on music distribution than other genres. Country radio still breaks new artists in an age where every other genre has lost that power to TikTok”. The review explicitly states that both characterizations are incorrect.  

The direct contradiction in the New York Times article’s claims regarding country music distribution is a glaring example of intellectual dishonesty or extreme carelessness. It suggests a willingness to deploy mutually exclusive arguments to support different parts of a narrative, sacrificing logical consistency for rhetorical convenience. Such internal inconsistencies severely undermine the article’s credibility, indicating that the author is prioritizing the construction of a persuasive (albeit flawed) narrative over factual accuracy and logical reasoning. This failure on basic argumentative principles demonstrates a disregard for the reader’s intelligence and the truth.

The following table provides a side-by-side comparison of the New York Times’ claims and the factual reality, illustrating the extent of the misinformation presented:

The Overall Condescending and “Sneering” Tone

The overall tone of the article is described by critics as a “sneering, down-looking attitude towards the genre, its fans, and its performers”. The review also notes the column is “unusually angry and uninformed”. This hostile and condescending tone is not merely a matter of style; it is inherently counterproductive to any purported goal of fostering understanding or progress in racial dynamics within country music.  

Beyond the Narrative: The Rich History and Evolving Diversity of Country Music

The New York Times article’s narrow and biased portrayal of country music completely ignores, and in fact, actively erases, its rich, multiracial history and the significant strides being made toward greater diversity and inclusivity today.

Country music in the U.S. did not begin as an exclusively white genre; its origins are deeply interwoven with Black culture. The banjo, a quintessential country instrument, is a direct descendant of the West African instrument known as the Akonting. Enslaved people brought their instruments and musical traditions (hymns, spirituals, field songs) from Africa, which profoundly influenced early “hillbilly music” (later renamed country). In the 1840s, the banjo was even considered an exclusively Black instrument.  

Despite the deeply segregated nature of America, Black and white hillbilly artists collaborated on numerous popular tracks in the 1920s and 30s, demonstrating a fluid exchange of musical traditions that shaped the genre. Pioneering Black artists made indelible marks on country music:  

• DeFord Bailey: A harmonica virtuoso, he was one of the first Black musicians to gain recognition and the first to play the Grand Ole Opry in the late 1920s, greatly influencing subsequent country musicians.  
• Charley Pride: Broke significant racial barriers in the 1960s and 70s, becoming one of country music’s most successful Black musicians. He was the first Black artist inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame and is often referred to as “country music’s first Black superstar,” amassing 39 No. 1 hits and becoming RCA’s best-selling performer since Elvis.  
• Ray Charles: His 1962 album Modern Sounds in Country and Western Music famously blended country with R&B and pop, challenging racial divisions in the industry and introducing country classics to new audiences.  
• Lesley Riddle: A Black guitarist whose fingerpicking style greatly influenced Maybelle Carter, a foundational figure in country music.  

The extensive historical evidence detailing the foundational contributions of Black artists to country music directly contradicts the New York Times article’s implicit or explicit portrayal of country as a predominantly white genre. By overlooking or minimizing this crucial history, the New York Times article engages in a profound form of cultural erasure, perpetuating a historically inaccurate narrative that serves its agenda. This failure to acknowledge the genre’s true origins and its multiracial development is a profound journalistic and cultural disservice, reinforcing the idea that the article is intellectually bankrupt and actively harmful to historical accuracy.  

Showcasing the Growing Diversity within Contemporary Country Music

While the industry historically segregated music into “race records” for Black audiences and “hillbilly music” for white audiences , there is a significant and growing movement towards greater diversity today. Prominent Black artists like Darius Rucker (who became the first African American to hit #1 on Billboard country singles since Charley Pride in 1983), Jimmie Allen (won CMA New Artist of the Year in 2021), Mickey Guyton, Kane Brown (biracial), Brittney Spencer, Shaboozey, Willie Jones, and Breland are gaining significant visibility and success. Independent Black artists such as Rhiannon Giddens, Yola, and Allison Russell are gaining critical recognition for blending country, folk, and Americana, often explicitly highlighting the overlooked contributions of Black musicians. Organizations like the Black Opry actively work to support and uplift Black country artists, ensuring their voices are heard and celebrated.  Diversity within the genre also extends beyond race, with LGBTQ+ artists like T.J. Osborne of Brothers Osborne and Chely Wright finding increasing acceptance.  

The New York Times article’s negative and monolithic portrayal of country music stands in stark contrast to the documented, tangible progress in diversity within the genre. By focusing solely on a narrative of white dominance and industry anointment, the article actively ignores, and thereby undermines, the significant efforts and successes of numerous Black, biracial, and LGBTQ+ artists who are breaking barriers and expanding the genre’s inclusivity. This selective narrative not only misrepresents the current state of country music but also potentially discourages further progress by painting the entire genre with a broad, negative brush, which is counterproductive to fostering a more inclusive environment. This represents a profound failure of responsible cultural commentary.  

The following table highlights key Black artists and their significant contributions to country music, illustrating the genre’s diverse heritage:

A Reckoning for Responsible Journalism

Although obviously an opinion piece, influential media outlets like The New York Times bear a significant responsibility to engage with cultural topics with intellectual rigor, historical accuracy, and a commitment to fostering constructive dialogue. This piece, however, exemplifies a dangerous trend of ideologically driven commentary that prioritizes provocation and partisan narratives over truth and nuance. For the sake of informed public discourse and genuine cultural progress, such deeply flawed takes must be called out and rigorously debunked.