Both sides have some good people?
1933 Germany comes to mind.
No thanks. Doesn’t deserve it. /shudder
Go ahead, Senator Tom, call 'em in. And watch them as they kneel down in solidarity with the peaceful protests and address all of our concern for non-violent law enforcement.
Well, except this wasn’t an “article” from the newsroom, it was an Opinion piece representing… the opinion of the writer. The entire point of the Opinion section. Trust or distrust corporate media, but understand what it is you are critiquing.
Methinks a lot of people are unfamiliar with The New York Times Opinion Section. They publish things from a variety of viewpoints, all over the spectrum when it comes to almost any issue. They have published opinion pieces by Vladimir Putin, making arguments that were inherently and unquestionably pro-Russian policy. Opinion is not connected to newsroom operations or reporting in any meaningful way.
And yes – sometimes, one gets the impression they are giving some folks a platform, in order to make quite clear to the public what perspectives and agendas are at play, including ones that the vast majority of quarters at The Times finds repugnant.
This is not a blanket endorsement for The Times by any stretch of the imagination. But to espouse the notion that The Times publishing a particular view in the Opinion section represents an endorsement, of any sort, is kind of out of touch.
Slacktivist reminds us about the “Father of Modern Policing” Robert Peel’s nine Principals of Policing:
1. The basic mission for which police exist is to prevent crime and disorder as an alternative to the repression of crime and disorder by military force and severity of legal punishment.
2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police existence, actions, behavior and the ability of the police to secure and maintain public respect.
3. The police must secure the willing cooperation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain public respect.
4. The degree of cooperation of the public that can be secured diminishes, proportionately, to the necessity for the use of physical force and compulsion in achieving police objectives.
5. The police seek and preserve public favor, not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to the law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws; by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of society without regard to their race or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humor; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
6. The police should use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to achieve police objectives; and police should use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
7. The police at all times should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police are the only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the intent of the community welfare.
8. The police should always direct their actions toward their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary by avenging individuals or the state, or authoritatively judging guilt or punishing the guilty.
9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.
We want social media companies to take action against the echo chambers they have created. Yet somehow many here want their media to remain an echo chamber. NYT is walking the walk of popping their own echo chamber. I absolutely want to hear reasoned arguments that conflict with mine.
Reading the Cotton piece I learned that a recent poll shows way more support than not for military riot intervention. I would have never guessed that and won’t read it here on boing boing.
That said, I wish they hadn’t published this piece just because it is so badly written and not up to their quality standards.
The death toll will double. From zero to zero. The death toll caused by police will also double. From lots to a fuckton.
This isn’t about partisan politics. This is about a sitting Senator calling for using the military to mow down protestors. It will be a bloodbath.
NY Times, once again, doesn’t realize that the press as an institution, and their reporters as individuals, are among the first targets of any police or military force.
They would have been smarter to simply write an article pillorying that senator for suggesting the military be used against its own citizens.
Endorsing violence against dissent is not an “opinion”. That’s the point.
Why, they’re just randomly selected scribbles from the men’s room wall at Penn Station
We can hardly hold the Times responsible for … what appears in the Times
This is not a parody:
Really. You don’t think The New York Times is aware of threats its journalists face from state forces? As one of the most influential news organizations on the planet, whose journalists face threats every day – they’re just blissfully unaware of this, as an institution?
Have you ever walked through The New York Times building, the newsroom? They literally have photographs and even exhibits dedicated to journalists and the threat they face from state forces. To mortal degree.
The logic of what you are describing is utterly lost on me.
Well, it sounds like you’re a person who just wants to read and be exposed to things you agree with, and don’t feel other views should be published. Not all of us are such people, and not all journalistic institutions take that stance.
You are free to consume your news from sources you solely agree with – I have no problem with that. But some of us want more diversity in the opinions we’re exposed to – even those we disagree with. And I for one am glad that The Times is a place I can go for at least a certain range of perspectives.
I am also quite aware of what versions of narratives do not tend to make their way into mainstream journalism, including The Times, and thus how much of reality is indeed left out of official narratives. But we all engage with non-perfect organizations every day.
