I’ll offer my own perspective.
I am completely confounded by the statement The Times has put out since yesterday’s friendly little discussion. And unequivocally the only response a reasonable person can have, taking it at face value, is one of extreme disappointment in the organization, and disapproval of how they went about this – up to including the publishing of the piece.
They didn’t read it? I mean, someone did. How precisely far up did that go? This certainly was one of the most controversial things they’ve ever published in Opinion, especially about anything domestic. No question. I’m not even sure I believe that they didn’t take it to the very top, but regardless, clearly there is something fucked-up going on.
I’m not sure if anybody here read the leaked Facebook meeting notes w/ Zuck, came out a few days ago I think, maybe yesterday, discussing their internal policies about what to block/not block/etc. I am hiiiiighly critical of how Facebook handles a lot of shit. But those notes, if accurate, at least makes it appear that Facebook puts some real energy into considering these things, even if I disagree with their conclusions. It demonstrates some internal consistency with how they review these things, and goes up to the top and includes Zuck himself.
To think that Facebook looks like a seriously sound operation, relative to how The Times handled this? Wow. I am flabbergasted, and extremely disappointed.
I stand by my view from yesterday in terms of whether publishing something like this is within the bounds of acceptability, on its own measure. I stand by my view that much of the feedback did not accurately contextualize the piece, as an extreme outlier of the views the paper tends to represent both in its reporting or Opinion pieces.
But now we have more context beyond the act itself. And to my mind, that does recontextualize whether the act itself is appropriate, in this particular real-world situation. With what I know now, I can say that I was incorrect, and The Times was incorrect. I can’t support the act itself, if the way they got there was severely broken. Clearly, I was mistaken to assume they have the proper policies and procedures in place for dealing with borderline situations and properly vetting very important publishing decisions. And it forces a reasonable person to ask – what more do we not know?
I still believe the organization does some sound and downright important reporting – within the generally-established guardrails of the mainstream media. I think in some important ways, the organization has been improving, as far as the range of views they cover. They have brought important things to light, in the Trump era, and in many other situations. All this remains true.
But what is clearer to me now, reading their statement? At the end of the day, those things are not relevant with regards to this, if such fundamental problems remain. They have real work to do, before they should feel comfortable enough to skirt established lines – and publishing Cotton’s piece absolutely qualifies as that.
