3 ms·

Since opinion pieces in the NYT have many times taken completely opposite sides (often in rapid succession), and the OpEd page is not considered journalism (i.e

by kurthr 9y ago

Since opinion pieces in the NYT have many times taken completely opposite sides (often in rapid succession), and the OpEd page is not considered journalism (i.e. it is opinion), I think your statement is patently false ("the NYT doesn't want...") unless you believe that the NYT wishes to be associated with all opinions. In fact that is how OpEd pages are supposed to work if one believes their readers might be able to think for themselves. See their editorial submission page for yourself: https://www.nytimes.com/content/help/site/editorial/op-ed/op-ed.html https://www.nytimes.com/content/help/site/editorial/op-ed/op... "We're interested in everything, if it's opinionated and we believe our readers will find it worth reading."

CamperBob2 9y ago
Great. So I can paste an article from Stormfront into my blog, and no one will think less of me for it as long as I state that I found it "interesting," and believe that my readers will find it "worth reading." Right?
- ucaetano 9y ago
  If you are the NYT, you probably can, as newspapers are known for having opinion sections. But you most probably are not.
  - CamperBob2 9y ago
    Yeah, no. I don't think they'd be up for that at the NYT. Spend some time thinking about why that might be.
    - ucaetano 9y ago
      I'd be happy to hear your opinion about that. Having never visited the website you mention, I can't really opine.
      - CamperBob2 9y ago
        Stormfront would be an extreme strawman example (neo-Nazi / white supremacist in this case.) Anyone, be it the NYT or Joe Random Blogger, will find themselves associated with controversial opinions if they publish editorials from Stormfront. It's not enough to say, "Just saying, is all." IMO it's fine for them to publish an editorial by Vladimir Putin, as long as he's not laying out a case for subverting elections in Ukraine (or here) or murdering unfriendly journalists. They caught some heat for letting him publish anything at all, if I remember correctly. But I think their decision was defensible, in part because he was writing on a matter of broad public interest, and because no reasonable person would assume the NYT supports Putin's more criminal-leaning behavior.
        ucaetano 9y ago
        Fair points, I agree with them.
- kurthr 9y ago
  Reason doesn't seem to be hurt badly by it. The editors of the Holocaust Denial issue (not some OpEd!) are still running political campaigns, and the foundation funding Reason Magazine. Does that seem like a double standard? https://pando.com/2014/07/24/as-reasons-editor-defends-its-racist-history-heres-a-copy-of-its-holocaust-denial-special-issue/ https://pando.com/2014/07/24/as-reasons-editor-defends-its-r...

by kurthr 9y ago

CamperBob2 9y ago

Great. So I can paste an article from Stormfront into my blog, and no one will think less of me for it as long as I state that I found it "interesting," and believe that my readers will find it "worth reading." Right?

ucaetano 9y ago
If you are the NYT, you probably can, as newspapers are known for having opinion sections. But you most probably are not.
- CamperBob2 9y ago
  Yeah, no. I don't think they'd be up for that at the NYT. Spend some time thinking about why that might be.
  - ucaetano 9y ago
    I'd be happy to hear your opinion about that. Having never visited the website you mention, I can't really opine.
    - CamperBob2 9y ago
      Stormfront would be an extreme strawman example (neo-Nazi / white supremacist in this case.) Anyone, be it the NYT or Joe Random Blogger, will find themselves associated with controversial opinions if they publish editorials from Stormfront. It's not enough to say, "Just saying, is all." IMO it's fine for them to publish an editorial by Vladimir Putin, as long as he's not laying out a case for subverting elections in Ukraine (or here) or murdering unfriendly journalists. They caught some heat for letting him publish anything at all, if I remember correctly. But I think their decision was defensible, in part because he was writing on a matter of broad public interest, and because no reasonable person would assume the NYT supports Putin's more criminal-leaning behavior.
      - ucaetano 9y ago
        Fair points, I agree with them.
kurthr 9y ago
Reason doesn't seem to be hurt badly by it. The editors of the Holocaust Denial issue (not some OpEd!) are still running political campaigns, and the foundation funding Reason Magazine. Does that seem like a double standard? https://pando.com/2014/07/24/as-reasons-editor-defends-its-racist-history-heres-a-copy-of-its-holocaust-denial-special-issue/ https://pando.com/2014/07/24/as-reasons-editor-defends-its-r...