This utterly torpedoes the notion that 1) the Times published it for the purposes of pluralism, and 2) that it’s the sort of thing the Times would have published even in the face of pluralism had responsible individuals been at the helm.
As usual, it’s bad seeds at the top that are tainting the larger org, just as so many have said here already.
What remains to be seen is, now that the Times itself has indicated that the piece was not up to their own editorial standards, will the staunch defenders of the piece online change their opinion? Because we all know the answer - expect doubling down on twitter that now, the Times was wrong to denounce the piece, or that they only did it due to pressure (despite revelations of lack of review and the opinions of the very journalists purported to be “doing the right thing” by publishing it in the first place).
