I think we have a pretty big disagreement about some basic things if you think that a sitting US Senator calling for the military to be deployed against US citizens is a rounding error. I happen to think that’s a pretty big Rubicon (if we can mix our metaphors further) to cross.
But in order to avoid beating a dead horse, I’ll give you the last word on this if you like. Take care.
“on the news” and “different media platforms”.
Maybe she’s referring to that thoughtful Op-ed in the liberal New York Times…
WASHINGTON, D.C. OFFICE
326 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-2353
Please note that mail sent to my Washington, D.C. office may be delayed up to three weeks as it is screened for security purposes. Due to the China Virus pandemic and tele-work policies, responses to mail sent to my Washington, D.C. office may be delayed longer than the standard screening period.
I think it’s a rounding error, when the Commander in Chief has already said it, and already taken steps to put pieces of the policy into action. Personally I’d love to know which Reps and Senators are most onboard with the BS – it could help influence which out-of-state elections I pay attention to, contribute funds to, etc.
Appreciate your civil tone and your thoughts and perspectives. And trust me, it’s not like views like Cotton’s and Trump’s don’t disgust me to the core. I have personally been on the receiving end of horse-mounted DC riot police kicking the shit out of protesters. It’s nothing I have an affinity toward. I also used to have a similar response to many of those expressed here, when it came to things published in The Times’ Opinion section. Still do, to a degree. For me, the views they choose to represent through the regular Opinion columnists is a bigger deal and worthy of more scrutiny than these somewhat occasional, highly controversial pieces by guest columnists. But hey, that’s just me, today.
You cannot pass this off as a paper publishing opposing commentary. No matter what, the paper is making editorial choices as to what it posts. It has to, lest it publish every submitted paper.
You cannot in any way shape or form disconnect the decision to, say, not post any of Senator Schatz’s submissions, but post this op-ed, from it being an editorial decision on the part of the op-ed desk to affirmatively choose to post incendiary opinions during a period of civil unrest. You can say “I agree with the posting of incendiary opinions during this period”, but be clear, these are direct decisions being made, and I for one have no issue calling out such decisions as tone-deaf, privileged, and likely causing more harm than good.
One can argue the validity of this behaviour as a “principled good” the same way one can argue that censorship of “any speech” is a “principled wrong” because of where it can lead. But those positions make an affirmative choice to ignore the reality of what is going on today to instead try and support a possible world of tomorrow. Doing this is a way of saying “I will help to usher in tomorrow on the backs of those suffering today, by engaging in principled behaviour likely to make your suffering worse before it gets better.”
The problem is, there are a whole shitload of people who look at that sort of decision making and think to themselves that those who believe these things are part of the problem now. I happen to be one of them.
You are certainly welcome to that perspective, just as I am welcome to disagree with it. I appreciate your perspective and your willingness to share it, regardless.
For me, bb would be very boring if everybody agreed about everything all of the time. I often feel like I’m in the minority here, when it comes to that opinion, but that’s fine.
I am curious if your stance on the recent Cotton piece is the same as your stance on this piece from September 11, 2013:
How is that even in the same ballpark? Where in that piece is there any call for direct confrontation? It’s literally the opposite of that.
That’s the point being missed in all of this - people will use the op-ed just posted to say “Look, even the fake news are with us. Let’s go!” as a level to cause more suffering. That’s the difference here. This isn’t a game, people are, right now, being affected by these decisions.
IMHO, if the editorial board didn’t anguish over the question “Will more people die because we post this?”, and decide “yes possibly, but the freedom to be heard takes precidence”, then they have failed at their job.
It’s like a large percentage of the population have decoupled cause and effect from these sorts of actions. But that literally cannot be. When you move to the position of “It’s ok to incite violence if it’s the correct violence”, there are consequences for taking that stance. One can’t pretend that “It won’t be that much violence”, or “It would have happened anyway”. Every call for violence begets more, and every group that enables those voices to reach more people enables that violence, full stop.
It’s not about the BBS being “less boring” or “fun”. It’s about “how many people should have to die in the name of the ideal of an umbiased press?”. There’s a lot more at stake than having an enjoyable forum to comment in. But this wasn’t said on the BBS. It was said in a national newspaper, and the NYT’s editorial board must stand accountable for amplifying a voice of hatred, by their own choice.
Editorial departments are both the money maker and the downfall of news, which sucks.
I mean, the goal of Putin’s piece was presumably to encourage the USA to do something that would allow Russia to be the sole arbiter of violence and policy in the region – the effects of which have been awful, and obvious. But at a much, much larger scale of violence and oppression than we will see from the US military when it comes to crowd control.
Was that piece less bad than Cotton’s because it didn’t involve Americans? Again, way more people have been killed, maimed, or been displaced in Syria due to Russian policy, weaponry, and support for the Syrian regime, than we will see from the US military with protests. Why was it a totally different thing to give Putin a platform to espouse policies that would likely lead to more deaths, but Cotton’s call for something that likely won’t actually happen is significantly worse?
We are fucked until people realize that having 1/5 of the world’s prison population means that the US is too punitive not just for “nonviolent” crimes but for all crimes at any level. Yes, there are some violent crimes where you need a robust prison system - but those crimes are so in the minority and also so skewed by the systemic injustices. You can’t have a functioning society where a huge chunk is incarcerated, and there is never any good public policy that is written out of fear.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/new-york-times-tom-cotton-ag-sulzberger
There are many people who can explain to you more intelligently than I why this op-ed was dangerous, racist, and ignorant. I want to explain to you why the defense of this op-ed by Times’ publisher A.G. Sulzberger is eye-openingly bad.
And then prevented from voting on the basis of that incarceration, no matter how trivial.
“It’s a whole new level of absurd to expect readers, upon finding an op-ed in the New York Times, to think, “Oh, well this is just to challenge the New York Times editorial board’s own view” — one reason Sulzberger gives for why the Times’ published Cotton. Nobody thinks that. It’s delusional, ivory tower thinking.”
This, from what I’ve seen, reflects the perspective many have raised here.
The thing I have to wonder is – do people making this criticism read The New York Times Opinion section with any regularity? To folks who do, I would think it is patently obvious based on the in-house columnists as well as the periodic guest Opinion pieces, that was Sulzberger describes absolutely is how The Times runs its Opinion section.
Every single day, there are views presented from a variety of perspectives, often directly contradicting one another. I often find the views I disagree with, which are sometimes represented by the regular columnists, to be odious. It is very clear to me that the views presented are the views of the writers. It is very clear that the Opinion section is unrelated to the newsroom.
So why anybody would actually think that Cotton’s piece represents The Times endorsing his views, is totally beyond me. And if a person 100% lacks any media literacy skills that allow them to differentiate, that is frankly on them IMHO, not The Times.
Why are you “Just asking questions” here? I mean, Putin’s piece was literally calling for a peace accord. Why do you keep putting them in the same category? Or to you, is “dissenting opinion” really just in it’s own bucket?
I have to assume you’re just driving trollies here now, because how can you say police aren’t using military-style behaviours and tactics on people right now? The ship already sailed there I’m afraid, the question is, how much worse is it going to get?
I really don’t understand what your point is supposed to be in all of this - that all dissenting opinion is good? That as long as you can’t tie this specific op-ed to someone pulling a trigger to murder someone, it’s ok?
Since you’re “just asking questions”, lets add some: Where is the line for you? At what point is posting calls for violence no longer ok? Which of the parody headlines in Rob’s other post are ok, and which aren’t, and why?
Because otherwise, you’ve spent a whole lot of time basically saying nothing except “I support the New York Times’s right to post calls for violence, because it helps this place be less boring and helps me make better decisions as a person”. And I’m not sure how that’s supposed to be a productive discussion, or even why you’d want to present to the rest of the community as a supporter of either of those positions in the first place.
Sulzberger:
We don’t publish just any argument — they need to be accurate, good faith explorations of the issues of the day
I am going to respond, but first I have to ask how your post is not a violation of the board’s tone-policing policies? I am engaging in a serious discussion, I am not driving trollies, and I don’t think I’ve said anything that demonstrates this other than the fact that you very vehemently disagree with me. I am respecting your and others’ opinions, I am trying to engage honestly and non-provocatively. I have been on this board for many years, and am trying to learn from some of my previous experiences how to do this better, for the good of the BBS.
Putin calling for a “peace accord” in Syria is about as genuine as, well, anything Putin has ever called for, IMHO. One must look at the reality on the ground. Russia has been an enabler for the Assad regime for ages, they have been directly involved in the Syrian conflict for years. I consider it total BS – just like I consider Cotton’s stance. Complete and total garbage. But I’m glad I’m more aware of it, and no, I do not personally see The Times as an enabler for these things, because 99% of their reporting and the Opinion pieces go against Cotton’s view, firmly.
Cotton was calling for the US military to be actively involved in suppressing the protests, unless I really read that piece wrong. Cotton is, whether we like it or not, an elected government official – not a random person off the street. He was calling for military units to be directly involved – this is different than militarized police using military-style equipment and tactics. Unquestionably, that is already occurring, and as I mentioned, I’ve been on the receiving end of it. I am quite aware.
But a US government official calling for a new policy of actively using the military to suppress protests? That is a category difference, in my opinion. It is newsworthy. It is awful, fascist garbage as well. I don’t tend to think too many readers of The Times will be swayed by it. Do you?
Literally the argument to why cable newsrooms are healthy and functional when they are objectively not. The role of the opinion section of any newsroom is to support the fourth estate’s role in society, publishing a variety of views that (while are not homogeneous) provide the foundation for the mission the newsroom has. The concept that there are two separate entities under one name that don’t relate to each other is fundamentally flawed logic used to excuse actions they make for likely cynical and shitty reasons. And increasingly that shitty reason is to drive traffic to the site and make the paper money - much like how cable news has embraced punditry in their prime time slots while the news is an afterthought. That philosophy doesn’t get to be brushed off by excusing it as being distinct from one another.
The newspaper published this as a representative statement that the editorial department feels their readership should digest, and that can never be something that is done without reflecting the views of the editorial staff deciding what gets published and what does not. The expectation is that the editorial board feels that this was important enough to be published as is without any further commentary, since they produce the content they are responsible for its viewpoint.
You’re absolutely right: the NYTimes should have put one of their best journalists on it to write up an in-depth article because it’s definitely something that needs investigating.
Oh wait, you were arguing for letting it stand in a place of prominence without comment.
I don’t disagree with your points, frankly. However, the other significant factor I consider when looking at this is, Cotton’s views, whether we like them or not, actually are representative of many Americans’. MANY. Like it or not, they ARE part of the current landscape. To edit that reality out of the news would be much less responsible, IMHO.
