5 ms·

These articles really do change the conversation in Washington, when the byline is someone like George Schultz. We don't expect to hear this sort of thing from

These articles really do change the conversation in Washington, when the byline is someone like George Schultz. We don't expect to hear this sort of thing from a member of the Nixon and Reagan administrations. In fact, it's not common to hear it from the Clinton and Obama administrations. But if it were from a Green or a Libertarian, it wouldn't reach the NYT op-ed page because it'd be uninteresting, and nobody in Washington would talk about it.

angel_j 9y ago
So you're saying the NYT, in all it's democracy-loving care and self-importance, can't (or editorially won't) push this issue on it's own, for instance by hammering the point home with continued, determined, journalistic reporting of actual events that the War on Drugs foments, because it's not "fit to print", or not "fit to sway Washington D.C."? But when some washed up D.C. insider millenials never heard of finally wants to admit what we all know, they run the article, as an opinion piece. But the nation can't focus on fixing the problem b/c of all the celebrity "news" and other garbage they did print in place of dogged coverage of decades-spanning, life-taking, community ruining, racist practices led by the federal government... That's exactly why we don't read the NYT. It's part of the oligarchy.
- forgottenpass 9y ago
  The parent poster already explained why this position would be seen as run-of-the-mill and ineffectual if comes from the NYT's editorial voice. The NYT choosing to run this is exactly what you want them to do, using their position to push this issue by choosing to run this Op-Ed. Yes, It's a bland position only catching up to the status quo of many statehouses, but what's significant is the byline. In this case, The Times is showing Shutlz and Aspe approve of the steps taken in states to an audience that's not ready to make any baby steps at a federal level.

angel_j 9y ago

So you're saying the NYT, in all it's democracy-loving care and self-importance, can't (or editorially won't) push this issue on it's own, for instance by hammering the point home with continued, determined, journalistic reporting of actual events that the War on Drugs foments, because it's not "fit to print", or not "fit to sway Washington D.C."? But when some washed up D.C. insider millenials never heard of finally wants to admit what we all know, they run the article, as an opinion piece. But the nation can't focus on fixing the problem b/c of all the celebrity "news" and other garbage they did print in place of dogged coverage of decades-spanning, life-taking, community ruining, racist practices led by the federal government... That's exactly why we don't read the NYT. It's part of the oligarchy.

forgottenpass 9y ago
The parent poster already explained why this position would be seen as run-of-the-mill and ineffectual if comes from the NYT's editorial voice. The NYT choosing to run this is exactly what you want them to do, using their position to push this issue by choosing to run this Op-Ed. Yes, It's a bland position only catching up to the status quo of many statehouses, but what's significant is the byline. In this case, The Times is showing Shutlz and Aspe approve of the steps taken in states to an audience that's not ready to make any baby steps at a federal level.