I can’t be the only one who’s curious to know about his “multitude of fuck ups”.
He apparently saw his job as coordinating the deputy editors, to one of whom he delegated this task.
Meant to post this over the weekend, and life happened.
Fixed for accuracy.
Hiring and coddling Bret Stephens counts as a multitude in and of itself, but there are others:
The pattern of unforced errors and P.R. nightmares under Bennet’s leadership was undeniable: a Sarah Palin libel suit; a not-so-thoroughly vetted editorial board hire whose job offer had to be rescinded; the publication of an anti-Semitic cartoon; the botched editing of a Brett Kavanaugh book excerpt; and, just a few months ago, Bret Stephens ’s highly problematic “Jewish Genius” column.
Meanwhile on the news side:
Wow, that IS an impressive resume of fuckery!
But lady, almost every time I get behind the wheel of my car, it doesn’t end up in your living room.
From today’s NYT: Bennet can’t leave gracefully, instead re-hashing the same BS arguments claiming that publishing that piece wasn’t a major screw-up.
Just go away, James. You’ve learned nothing. Find a new zentrum publication that feels it’s important that readers hear about long-discredited positions that you yourself can’t be bothered to review.
Since he’s gone, maybe this is beating a dead horse, but I just saw this:
It was as frank an explication as Bennet has given of how he conceives of the opinion section. Slaloming between contradictions, Bennet laid out an ideology of no ideology. The editorial page is beholden to no priors (except when it is). It proudly forswears the idea of right answers (except when it doesn’t). It is humanist and ecumenical but also of the belief, for instance, that some kinds of ethnic cleansing are worthy of debate.
Does anybody else connect the dots between “police spend a week openly assaulting members of the press” and “editor at country’s biggest newspaper publishes Republican senator’s article without reading it”, or is that just me? That’s my main takeaway here.
Probably a dead thread, but this is a good read to understand a little bit about The New York Times editorial board, including what they think is unacceptable for their brand, when Tom Cotton isn’t:
Which is to say, he read Molly Ivins and I didn’t.
This prompts ( but does not beg ) the question of why they would hire Molly Ivins in the first place. It’s not like she started out writing obits and was later given a column; they had apparently read her previous stuff and decided it was fine, just as long as she didn’t keeping writing that way after they hired her.
Turns out, probably not.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.