But they can’t publish such extremist socialist views! The American public would not STAND for it! /s
11 Likes
I disagree with your interpretation of Rob’s words (but that doesn’t mean I’m right and you’re wrong). I also disagree that there are patterns of bad judgment, laziness, and not thinking things through. I do think that there are lots of examples of it, but again the NYT publishes an astronomical amount of material, so one would almost expect that.
(Edited - before your post appeared, honestly. In any event, I don’t see how this matters except that I am sad when I disagree with the BB bloggers.)
1 Like
Let’s let @beschizza clarify once and for all, then – if he cares to challenge such obvious misrepresentations of his words.
7 Likes
Then maybe use the term “philosphy of publication” (which emerges from a culture and mindset) instead of one that implies that people are talking about an official policy promulgated by some dark cabal – which no-one is doing. Contrast with Rob’s clear, no-BS language.
5 Likes
Disagreement won’t get you booted, it’s not a Mean Girls clique.
I’d be careful about announcing your disappointment though.
12 Likes
Well, I did, in the clarification.
I’m never disappointed with the BB bloggers. Even when they recommend dodgy kitchen tools.
2 Likes
Like, really, this is not what the post is about. Move on.
11 Likes
3 Likes
it makes sense for the times to talk about afactual and counter-factual ideas especially when they are held by people in positions of power.
they could have, for instance, written a column describing cotton’s op-ed submission, with context on who cotton is, what the first amendment provides, context on racism and police brutality, notes about tiananmen square, they could (maybe) have even provided access to what he wrote by linking to it.
simply publishing his piece is wrong. writing about his views as a sitting senator who’s calling for military action against americans on american soil? that’s not only called for, that’s necessary.
[edit: changed to make it more clear i wasn’t talking about publishing a side by side piece, but rather reporting what cotton wrote without actually including what he wrote under their banner.]
4 Likes
Yes.
Minimum number of characters, woot.
Ok, so we’re agreeD on the principle that the value of publishing “opinions from across the spectrum” exists, but clearly does not excuse the publication of anything and everything for the sake of diversity.
Now, the question is whether an OpEd calling for the military to be used on US soil against US citizens fits in that category of things that reasonable people can agree don’t need to be amplified. I believe it most definitely does.
5 Likes
I’m a bit confused by the cross-posting between the two threads here. I think Gracchus is saying it very well but I’m not particularly bothered by what I think is d_r’s interpretation either.
I don’t think there is a conspiracy or a cabal or such.
That said, higher-ups at the Times are responsive to private demands from powerful subjects in a way that adheres to formal journalistic ethics but is, to all others, an example of who they do respond to and who they don’t, and (most interesting to me) who they think they owe explanations to. The Times is an intimate confidant of power and the viewpoint of power suffuses its editorial choices.
13 Likes
When it’s an elected figure who has some capability of influencing those events actually occurring, I would rather know about it in advance, versus being surprised one day when tanks are rolling down the street. 
Meanwhile, here’s a recent opinion piece by a conservative political commentator published in the pages of the Washington Post:
8 Likes
Thanks, Rob. That doesn’t strike me as a particularly “extreme conclusion”.
6 Likes
We already knew that Cotton was proposing using military force against US citizens. It was already in the news. People were already critiquing it. This wasn’t a shadowy plot that the NYT exposed to sunlight by giving Cotton a platform, this was an argument for fascism that the NYT gave its imprimatur.
When a platform like the NYT gives these kinds of things legitimacy, it moves the Overton window, even if teensy bit, in the wrong fucking direction.
10 Likes
I think it’s a rounding error when it comes to the Overton Windows given what’s going on. I think it likely actually informs more people that this thinking is out there, and might motivate more people to work against it. You clearly don’t agree, which is fine, but that’s my view. I read The Times, not every source, so this was my first exposure to Cotton’s thoughts on this issue, as of late.
3 Likes
Has anyone counted NYT op-eds by US Senators over the last couple decades? Do they play at D-vs-R balancing?
1 Like
From the News Guild of New York:
“Though we understand the Op-Ed desk’s responsibility to publish a diverse array of opinions, we find the publication of this essay to be an irresponsible choice.[…]This is a particularly vulnerable moment in American history. Cotton’s Op-Ed pours gasoline on the fire. Media organizations have a responsibility to hold power to account, not amplify voices of power without context and caution.”
Their full statement: https://twitter.com/nyguild/status/1268362511956545536/photo/1
11 Likes
Yes. That’s about peace and about peace talks not about calling in the world’s most feared army on American civilians.
Anyway fuck Al Qaeda, I don’t give a shit about them and I’m sorry I’m discussing them. What I care about is the NYT publishing a call to murder Black people. It’s fucking sickening.
7 Likes
