And some other shit too. The problem is that once you publish the other shit, it is harder to know which is the fitshit.
NYT has several different categories of “opinion”: Editorials, Columnists, Guest contributions, Letters. Their model is that only the Editorials (and the lead “Today’s Opinion”) represent the newspaper’s position, and the rest is balance, but sectioned off in sneer quotes so the reader won’t take it as seriously.
This model obviously doesn’t work, in part because we don’t always access content in the paper the way people used to (where this categorization was more obvious), and in part because we also understand that what gets into the other sections is also, obviously, a matter of newspaper policy.
The Cotton thing was a bad call on the part of the paper. I think I understand why they did it: reading it gives some insight into how a functioning human being might conceivably support this kind of military action, something that mainly seems unthinkable to me. I also don’t think that it in any way reflects some secret NYT complicity in authoritarian policy; all their ‘real’ editorials (and almost all of their guest contributions) have been adamantly opposed to such action.
However, it was divisive and inflammatory at a time when that’s what we absolutely do not need. They should have waited until after things were settled, and maybe run an article where a reporter interviews Cotton (instead of giving him the soapbox) and asks him, “what the fuck were you thinking?” That would have been just as informative, without feeding the beast.
Would they do so much for Al Qaeda? If so, they wouldn’t be hypocritical.
I remember The Guardian giving an opinion column to someone who turned out to be part of a group calling for an Islamic caliphate.
And of course they keep letting Simon Jenkins write things.
That example doesn’t make sense; Al Qaeda is not somehow the ‘opposite’ of Cotton, and they do not represent a major faction in the United States. I expect that newspapers in the Middle East have given similar opportunities to leading Salafist jihadists.
They represent a group wishing to slaughter americans, just not one the NYT wants to platform. Unlike Cotten.
Exactly this. We need to think about the level of privilege that it takes to publish (or defend the publication of) a piece like this, a privilege grounded in the smug certainty (one blind to the history of fascism) that if the dangerous course of action advocated comes to pass neither the senior editors of the paper nor its target audience* will be affected by it. It’s an incredibly foolish and irresponsible stance to take, especially by people who should know better.
One of the most disingenuous parts of James Bennet’s explanation is this statement:
Times Opinion owes it to our readers to show them counter-arguments, particularly those made by people in a position to set policy.
James, you’ve run your market demographics, and I’ve seen the paper’s ads over the years. Don’t pretend that your readers aren’t already long aware of those “counter-arguments” (to what? human decency? rule of Constitutional law?), and don’t pretend that many of those readers also set this country’s political and economic policies themselves in ways large and small. This isn’t just giving space to hand-wringing and concern-tr0lling clowns like Bobo and Cardinal Douthat to provide an unconvincing facade of “balance”. Asking us to consider the views and opinions of a known authoritarian and racist is virtue-signalling that will have dangerous consequences – maybe even for you.
[* disclaimer: I am a member of that target audience, but one who understands that doorman buildings and neighbourhoods that the police actually “protect and defend” won’t protect me if the enablement of right-wing populists results in a further consolidation of their power and a further degradation of liberal democracy]
Paedophiles should be forced to marry their victims… debate!
This is a real-deal law in some parts of this fucked up world, but do you really believe that a publication has a social obligation to offer a platform for discourse about something that is so clearly out of alignment with civil society? Is US Senator Tom Cotton oppressed in some way that his voice isn’t literally one of the most powerful on the planet?
As @anon61221983 keeps trying to help you understand, human right violations aren’t an opinion. Plus the fact that they shut off comments tells you everything you need to know about this supposed “debate”.
Which, I would argue, makes the NYTs publication all the more reprehensible. A repugnant idea already being embraced by the repugnant population of this country doesn’t need to be amplified by the paper of record. No principle of the marketplace of ideas nor free speech demands it.
Do you think it would have been wrong for the NYT, instead of printing Cotton’s piece, published a piece from the editors explaining that Cotton asked them to print a piece calling for the use of the military against protesters, but they would not publish it because it was morally (and legally) unacceptable?
I still have a WaPo subscription. I used to love doing the NYT Sunday crossword puzzle with my wife, so I’m gonna miss them.
I am outraged, truly outraged a newspaper that interviews Nazis and publishes columns by such intellectual titans as Bret Stephens and Ross Douthat would provide a platform for a racist shitweasel like Tom Cotton.
Saying that they don’t represent a major faction in the US ignores both the role of the Times in shaping US opinion and the role of Al Qaeda’s opinions in our public policy. But setting that aside consider if they would publish a piece calling for the killing of cops or calling the burning of the police station in Minneapolis somewhat justified. The first option has some public support and the second is a majority opinion. The Times presents a range of opinions that fall within the accepted discourse among those those in power. They’ve decided having the military murder people in the streets is within that scope.
Not to mention that it is extraordinarily common in even sectarian leftist spaces to read, discuss, and critique writings from the right and the far right. I imagine you can find a lot more anarchists who’ve read the Turner Diaries and listened to Steve King speak than you can find people in Tom Cotton’s sphere who’ve read Bookchin or even Zinn.
It is easy to not violate human rights by simply not handing them a megaphone. Public opinion is shaped not just by the content of arguments, but by their public presence, especially if that presence is in a place that carries social weight. This ties into the whole Overton window concept. Publishing this same text under the heading of Stormfront doesn’t carry the same social capital as the Times or the Post. This is the fundamental problem with the debate framing. We actually have an example that pretty much everyone is familiar with, Murrow’s speaking out against the Vietnam war. None of the words and concepts he expressed were new, but their place in our social discourse was. When the Times carries a call for murder, it carries weight, even on the opinion page. You don’t have to provide a platform for all positions and the Times knows that.
They aren’t, not even a little bit. They are well within their comfort range, buying access and selling eyeballs. I’ll note that they aren’t publishing calls for property destruction or the abolition of police. It would be entirely possible to find cogent well written articles on those topics, but it is well outside their bubble.
Possibly not, though this op-ed comes close. The NYT has also recently run articles relatively supportive of antifa, for example this one which uses supporter Michaly Bray as its main source and points out that comparing them to right-wing extremists is a false equivalency.
None of that means they should have run the Cotton piece, as I made clear in my post upthread. However, I think concluding anything about NYT’s ulterior motives or nefarious policies from the Cotton publication is a huge stretch.
Do you know what? I am glad that they published this screed of hate, ignorance, and bigotry.
Why? Because it makes plain the evilness of what is left of the Republican party. This Tom Cotton is obviously one of the worst people on the planet, and yet; he’s a senator. He is despicable and horrible; and yet a large percentage of his constituents voted for him. And they will continue to vote for him.
It makes it clear that the Republican agenda is destroying everything about this country which is good in order to enrich themselves and cause as much pain and destruction for other people as possible.
It makes it clear that they are willing to use violence to further their political aims, which means we no longer need to give them any quarter whatsoever.
I don’t think the motives are anything mysterious: the NYT OpEd page values establishment voices and access above all other concerns. It is the ideology of power motivating them, nothing more.
Hell, they admitted as much in their own rationalization–they said they should publish the piece because Cotton was someone in power. For them, that argument should be self-evident.
You’re confused here. Neither he nor Rob are talking about “ulterior motives” or “nefarious policies”. He’s talking about the comfort level the NYT’s leadership culture has with conservative-sponsored violence (the kind that supposedly protects property and stock portfolios and – on a larger scale – oil supplies) in contrast to left-wing violence. They assume their core readership (affluent and educated white members of the country’s economic and cultural elites) shares this culture to some extent.
I don’t think we needed the NYT to debase itself and abandon its role as a liberal-democratic institution in order to realise this. I’ve spent 40 years watching the party descend further and further into madness and hatemongering – is this news to any liberal or progressive who reads the Times?
I know and I am grateful to them. I have PTSD from repeated attacks by fascists and can’t manage to watch or read far-right propaganda first hand anymore. I used to, and have tried since the attacks, but seeing people tell me I have no right to live gives me flashbacks.
If that were the case then the op-ed pages would have had more than this one piece from this perspective. The overwhelming majority of their editorial content has been on the other side.
They published one op-ed, from a major American politician. I agree with pretty much everyone here that that was a mistake, but I disagree with the extreme conclusions people are drawing from it. I know it has become a bit of a sport to scour the NYT for such examples, like a journalistic variant of Where’s Waldo, and one can usually find them, but that is hardly surprising in an enterprise of its magnitude and complexity.
Most important newspapers have personalities, and it is reasonable to not subscribe to papers where you disagree with their personality. I unsubscribed from the NYT in the mid-80s because of their cheerleading for the Contras in Nicaragua, and have never found a reason to resubscribe, but I still admire most of what they do, and agree with many of their main op-ed decisions, if not this one.
I think this demonstrates my point. The majority of folks at the NYT OpEd almost certainly don’t agree with what Trump is doing and/or Cotton is proposing.
But because they value establishment voices above all else, they ran Cotton’s piece because what are they gonna do, NOT publish something that a US Senator wants them to publish? For them, it’s absurd to even consider the possibility of turning something like this down.
