The New York Times has run op-eds by some of the leading evildoers of the 20th and 21st centuries. Communist revolutionaries, terrorists, religious fanatics, murderous dictators — they have allowed a hall of fame of evil to grace their pages. The explanation by the editor has always been that the Times airs a wide variety of viewpoints and will continue to do so.
Except if the rabid frothing left disagrees with the viewpoint being published. Then, it’s time for the editor to back down and grovel while begging forgiveness.
The Republican Senator from Arkansas, Tom Cotton, had an op-ed published in the Times defending Trump’s threat to send in active duty military to quell the violence. The reaction by the Times staff and other op-ed writers was swift.
— roxane gay (@rgay) June 3, 2020
Wild, hysterical exaggeration aside, what “danger” is she talking about?
In yet another tweet, Gay said that while she supported a wide range of viewpoints in the opinion section, she didn’t think Cotton’s op-ed was appropriate.
“As a NYT writer I absolutely stand in opposition to that Tom Cotton ‘editorial,'” she wrote. “We are well served by robust and ideologically diverse public discourse that includes radical, liberal, and conservative voices.”
“This is not that,” she added. “His piece was inflammatory and endorsing military occupation as if the constitution doesn’t exist.”
So, the Times staff is in “danger” because Cotton “endorsed” a “military occupation”?
More on the “danger” for staffers.
— Jenna Wortham (@jennydeluxe) June 3, 2020
I spent some of the happiest and most productive years of my life working for the New York Times. So it is with love and sadness that I say: running this puts Black @nytimes staff – and many, many others – in danger. pic.twitter.com/1EIvzgORWj
— Lydia Polgreen (@lpolgreen) June 4, 2020
I carefully read Cotton’s op-ed. There is no such endorsement. There is no mention of “military occupation.” There is only Gay’s very active, very paranoid imagination.
A former op-ed editor was more restrained.
THREAD: As a former @nytimes Op-Ed editor I am reluctant to weigh in on my alma mater. But the decision to publish @SenTomCotton calling for troop deployments to quell unrest falls short of sound journalistic practice. pic.twitter.com/SgXSndkq8l
— Sewell Chan (@sewellchan) June 3, 2020
Enough! No one at the Times is in any position to be talking about “sound journalistic practice” after the orgy of misinformation published by the paper during the “Russian collusion” crisis.
Editorial page editor James Bennet defended the decision, right? He’s all for free speech and all, right?
“The Times editorial board has forcefully defended the protests as patriotic and criticized the use of force, saying earlier today that police too often have responded with more violence – against protesters, journalists and bystanders,” he wrote.
“As part of our explorations of these issues, Times Opinion has published powerful arguments supporting protests, advocating fundamental change and criticizing police abuses. Times Opinion owes it to our readers to show them counter-arguments, particularly those made by people in a position to set policy. We understand that many readers find Senator Cotton’s argument painful, even dangerous. We believe that is one reason it requires public scrutiny and debate.”
He agrees with them, but the paper should have run it anyway. If Bennett believed that would assuage the feelings and outrage of his fellow leftists, he was laughably mistaken.
No and no and no – you've made one too many bad decisions and clearly should not have run this https://t.co/SV1YrVayP0
— Manohla Darkness (@ManohlaDargis) June 4, 2020
David Marcus in The Federalist:
But this is no surprise to most writers on the Right, even those of us who have graced the Gray Lady’s pages. There is all but a “conservatives need not apply” sign strapped to their shingle. Oh its fine if a conservative wants to trash the excesses of his own side, but if they want to actually defend conservatism they either get a dial tone, or if like Cotton, they manage to get it past the goalie, outrage from staff, readers, and eventual rebuke.
It is extremely tiresome. In recent days there have been dystopic videos of white people en masse kneeling before black people and chanting confessions for their race. It seems like a metaphor for meetings between Times staff and the editorial board, the latter always begging forgiveness. It’s sad and pathetic. And it absolutely belies the notion that the Times is doing anything even remotely like giving a fair hearing to all sides.
New York City used to be the “center of the world” and the Times was, at one time, respected for its objective reporting and thoughtful editorials. Now, the city is barely the center of New York and the Times has become just another cog in the leftist propaganda machine.
But don’t worry. For those who don’t think the Times can sink any lower, just wait a while.