7 ms·

I recently canceled my NYT subscription over the Tom Cotton op-ed. Really glad I did. WaPo and ProPublica have my money now.

by e40 6y ago

fourcommas 6y ago
WaPo holds the distinguished title of being the first and only newspaper in the US whose editorial board endorsed the arrest and criminal charging of their own source.
- hetspookjee 6y ago
  I hold the WaPo in high regard and tend to read it everyday but I missed this entirely, and sounds rather shocking. Could you please source your statement?
  - DFHippie 6y ago
    Me shouting at a cloud: "every day" means "all days" or, adverbially, "on every day"; "everyday" means "ordinary, common, expected". I know I'll get downvoted, but I see the conflation of "everyday" and "every day" everywhere and it's driving me bonkers. ETA: Note, they are pronounced differently. "Everyday" has a single primary stress on the first syllable. "Every day" has two primary stresses, one on the first syllable and one on the last.
    - hetspookjee 6y ago
      Thanks a( )lot! I didn't know this was a conflation. Learned something new here.
  - fourcommas 6y ago
    Snowden passed his trove of classified info to two papers: WP and Guardian. Snowden never published any of his trove, he relied on these two papers to determine what was newsworthy and publish it. WP published various parts of the trove they deemed newsworthy, and ultimately won and accepted a Pulitzer for this. Then the editorial board signed and published a statement that said some of what was released from the trove actually wasn't newsworthy and were reasonable and legal defense programs. The editorial board recommended that because of this Snowden should be charged. In the editorial itself they acknowledge that the illegal behavior that was discovered can't be used as a defense in court. The WP was offered and accepted the responsibility to parse this trove and publish only what is newsworthy. They messed up and published a couple documents that weren't newsworthy. They never publish any kind of apology or correction for it, instead they indict their own source, and recommend he be charged for that! There's an unprecedented level of malice and incompetence displayed here. Look at the revolt in the NYT newsroom about the Cotton op-ed, and compare to literally not a word said in opposition to the WP editorial (which was written and signed by the editorial board, unlike the Cotton op-ed). The WP is rotten throughout, and shouldn't be held in even the slightest regard as a newspaper when they use their position to destroy the protection of sources that journalists fought for so long to preserve. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/edward-snowden-doesnt-deserve-a-pardon/2016/09/17/ec04d448-7c2e-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/edward-snowden-doesn...
hkai 6y ago
May I ask why? I assume this is because many people think it is better that a left-leaning newspaper doesn't publish right-wing opinion pieces, but I would think that this creates a "bubble" and prevents readers from challenging their own opinions. A reduced version of this question would be: if Hitler/Xi/Kim were to publish an opinion piece in NYT, should they reject it or should they publish it?
- bagels 6y ago
  For me it was not that it was a right/left opinion piece. It was a piece calling for the government to murder protesters which the editor solicited and published without reading. Nor was any context or commentary provided indicating such. (edit) You can also see, now, after the backlash, NYT agrees that it probably shouldn't have been published. Based on that review, we have concluded that the essay fell short of our standards and should not have been published. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protests-military.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protes...
  - freshhawk 6y ago
    Do you actually believe the editor didn't read it? That is a pretty blatant and obvious lie to control the fallout.
    - bagels 6y ago
      I actually don't believe it, but I have no evidence to support that belief. But it doesn't matter, because that actually makes it more reprehensible.
      - kjaftaedi 6y ago
        They published a story about the publication of the article and the events leading up to it. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/business/new-york-times-op-ed-cotton.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/business/new-york-times-o... The editor in question also resigned. Not saying it justifies the original publication, but I appreciate the way it was handled.
asah 6y ago
You can re-subscribe: the editor who made this bad call has already resigned.
- user982 6y ago
  Bari Weiss and Bret Stephens have not.
  - Veen 6y ago
    And thank goodness they have not. Otherwise, the NYT would be entirely devoid of sense.
dzonga 6y ago
I cancelled mine in 2016. when they had biased reporting against Bernie Sanders. to me, a person from a 3rd world country staying in the states. was a shock. one of the biggest papers in the world, being politically biased. I was mad and sad.
- specialist 6y ago
  I canceled when they pimped the Iraq War. About every time I'm half tempted to finally forgive and move on, they reoffend.
- 9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago
  While there is no totally unbiased media, in America it's a feature not a bug. Heck, they even publicly endorse candidates which is extremely weird at least for me, someone not living there.
unethical_ban 6y ago
I still think that when it is a sitting US Senator, and you are in a position to know that many people may only look to you as the paper of record, it can be of public service to let the baddies have their say, for perspective - perhaps with the strongest condemnations from the editorial board. I generally believe the NYT has a better newsroom than Wapo.

I recently canceled my NYT subscription over the Tom Cotton op-ed. Really glad I did. WaPo and ProPublica have my money now.

by e40 6y ago

I recently canceled my NYT subscription over the Tom Cotton op-ed. Really glad I did. WaPo and ProPublica have my money now.

fourcommas 6y ago

WaPo holds the distinguished title of being the first and only newspaper in the US whose editorial board endorsed the arrest and criminal charging of their own source.

hetspookjee 6y ago
I hold the WaPo in high regard and tend to read it everyday but I missed this entirely, and sounds rather shocking. Could you please source your statement?
- DFHippie 6y ago
  Me shouting at a cloud: "every day" means "all days" or, adverbially, "on every day"; "everyday" means "ordinary, common, expected". I know I'll get downvoted, but I see the conflation of "everyday" and "every day" everywhere and it's driving me bonkers. ETA: Note, they are pronounced differently. "Everyday" has a single primary stress on the first syllable. "Every day" has two primary stresses, one on the first syllable and one on the last.
  - hetspookjee 6y ago
    Thanks a( )lot! I didn't know this was a conflation. Learned something new here.
- fourcommas 6y ago
  Snowden passed his trove of classified info to two papers: WP and Guardian. Snowden never published any of his trove, he relied on these two papers to determine what was newsworthy and publish it. WP published various parts of the trove they deemed newsworthy, and ultimately won and accepted a Pulitzer for this. Then the editorial board signed and published a statement that said some of what was released from the trove actually wasn't newsworthy and were reasonable and legal defense programs. The editorial board recommended that because of this Snowden should be charged. In the editorial itself they acknowledge that the illegal behavior that was discovered can't be used as a defense in court. The WP was offered and accepted the responsibility to parse this trove and publish only what is newsworthy. They messed up and published a couple documents that weren't newsworthy. They never publish any kind of apology or correction for it, instead they indict their own source, and recommend he be charged for that! There's an unprecedented level of malice and incompetence displayed here. Look at the revolt in the NYT newsroom about the Cotton op-ed, and compare to literally not a word said in opposition to the WP editorial (which was written and signed by the editorial board, unlike the Cotton op-ed). The WP is rotten throughout, and shouldn't be held in even the slightest regard as a newspaper when they use their position to destroy the protection of sources that journalists fought for so long to preserve. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/edward-snowden-doesnt-deserve-a-pardon/2016/09/17/ec04d448-7c2e-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/edward-snowden-doesn...

hkai 6y ago

May I ask why? I assume this is because many people think it is better that a left-leaning newspaper doesn't publish right-wing opinion pieces, but I would think that this creates a "bubble" and prevents readers from challenging their own opinions. A reduced version of this question would be: if Hitler/Xi/Kim were to publish an opinion piece in NYT, should they reject it or should they publish it?

bagels 6y ago
For me it was not that it was a right/left opinion piece. It was a piece calling for the government to murder protesters which the editor solicited and published without reading. Nor was any context or commentary provided indicating such. (edit) You can also see, now, after the backlash, NYT agrees that it probably shouldn't have been published. Based on that review, we have concluded that the essay fell short of our standards and should not have been published. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protests-military.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protes...
- freshhawk 6y ago
  Do you actually believe the editor didn't read it? That is a pretty blatant and obvious lie to control the fallout.
  - bagels 6y ago
    I actually don't believe it, but I have no evidence to support that belief. But it doesn't matter, because that actually makes it more reprehensible.
    - kjaftaedi 6y ago
      They published a story about the publication of the article and the events leading up to it. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/business/new-york-times-op-ed-cotton.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/business/new-york-times-o... The editor in question also resigned. Not saying it justifies the original publication, but I appreciate the way it was handled.

asah 6y ago

You can re-subscribe: the editor who made this bad call has already resigned.

user982 6y ago
Bari Weiss and Bret Stephens have not.
- Veen 6y ago
  And thank goodness they have not. Otherwise, the NYT would be entirely devoid of sense.

dzonga 6y ago

I cancelled mine in 2016. when they had biased reporting against Bernie Sanders. to me, a person from a 3rd world country staying in the states. was a shock. one of the biggest papers in the world, being politically biased. I was mad and sad.

specialist 6y ago
I canceled when they pimped the Iraq War. About every time I'm half tempted to finally forgive and move on, they reoffend.
9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago
While there is no totally unbiased media, in America it's a feature not a bug. Heck, they even publicly endorse candidates which is extremely weird at least for me, someone not living there.

unethical_ban 6y ago

I still think that when it is a sitting US Senator, and you are in a position to know that many people may only look to you as the paper of record, it can be of public service to let the baddies have their say, for perspective - perhaps with the strongest condemnations from the editorial board. I generally believe the NYT has a better newsroom than Wapo.