6 ms·

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 thin

by 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.
      - DagAgren 6y ago
        It was handled that way only after first handling it incredlby, horrendously badly. They were dragged kicking and screaming by their entire staff into handling it correctly only after a week of absolutely bungling it.
        jkestner 6y ago
        I subscribe to the Times for that staff. I skip over the clickbait of the Stephenses and Brookses and read Blow and Bouie.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jki275 6y ago
  I'm quite certain the Senator did not call for the murder of protestors. I actually read the article. While as a life-long military person I don't agree with his conclusions, you are mischaracterizing his article and I strongly suspect haven't read it.
- lawnchair_larry 6y ago
  It was a piece calling for the government to murder protesters which the editor solicited and published without reading. Now, you too are making things up. This is where “fake news” charges come from. Here’s what it actually said: Those excuses are built on a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters. A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants. But the rioting has nothing to do with George Floyd, whose bereaved relatives have condemned violence. On the contrary, nihilist criminals are simply out for loot and the thrill of destruction, with cadres of left-wing radicals like antifa infiltrating protest marches to exploit Floyd’s death for their own anarchic purposes. These rioters, if not subdued, not only will destroy the livelihoods of law-abiding citizens but will also take more innocent lives. Sounds reasonable to me. This also proved correct. And I agree with the article.
  - unethical_ban 6y ago
    >On the contrary, nihilist criminals are simply out for loot and the thrill of destruction, with cadres of left-wing radicals like antifa infiltrating protest marches to exploit Floyd’s death for their own anarchic purposes. It does constitute an opinion, but an incorrect one. Taking over a police station and a city hall in Seattle, for example, is pretty impressive - and it strikes violence at the heart of perceived violence. No, Antifa is not a club or an organization. There is no membership. And there is no bouncer at the protests to make sure everyone is on the same page or of the same opinion - it is flat out inevitable that some people will be of poor opinion and behavior. The Right's framing of the relatively small amount of violence is indicative of a police state. The reaction by police unions in the face of calls for punishing abusive cops is indicative of the violent arm of the state protecting its own absolute authority over the people.
    - specialist 6y ago
      I stopped participating in public protests because there's as yet no effective way to counter, neutralize provocateurs.
dagmx 6y ago
Vox actually covers this really well https://www.vox.com/2020/6/5/21280425/new-york-times-tom-cotton-send-troops-staff-revolt https://www.vox.com/2020/6/5/21280425/new-york-times-tom-cot... Basically it boils down to: * it was a fairly dangerous opinion with fabrications that weren’t vetted by the editorial team * it was disrespectful and dangerous to the safety of their employees of color. The safety of people should not be a partisan issue * it compromised the reporting abilities of other arms of the NYT
- twybrobdingnag 6y ago
  What I found fascinating in this story is that NYT claims with a straight face that the respective piece is dangerous specifically to their employees of color. I can see how one can hyperventilate 'military in the streets' to 'military shooting live ammunition indiscriminately into masses of peaceful protestors', and I can see how they'd imagine their brave reporters being in the front lines to keep us informed, but I just can't imagine the thought process behind 'and the bullets avoid white / asian NYT reporters and crew members and specifically target the ones with melanin above a certain level'.
  - DagAgren 6y ago
    > but I just can't imagine the thought process behind 'and the bullets avoid white / asian NYT reporters and crew members and specifically target the ones with melanin above a certain level'. Bullets don't fly on their own accord. Someone aims them.
    - twybrobdingnag 6y ago
      That is a serious accusation. What evidence do you have that this hypothetical you are constructing has any bearing to reality? I remember a time when 'innocent until proven guilty' was a guiding principle of public conversation. These days we gleefully accuse people of hypothetical crimes. How about we stop doing that?
      - 6y ago
freshhawk 6y ago
Obviously you reject it, and you publish a story about how this person wanted to publish an opinion piece advocating war crimes, because that's the part that is news. Also, this is so obvious, to so many parts of the political spectrum that pretending to not understand it is "telling on yourself" in modern parlance.
plorkyeran 6y ago
"A US Senator thinks we should deploy the military domestically to murder protestors" is pretty important news that the NYT should be covering, and I think there's a fair argument for publishing the piece as part of that coverage. That isn't what the NYT did though; they dropped it as an opinion piece that they implicitly endorsed. Newspapers fairly regularly print opinion pieces that run contrary to the normal bias of the paper, but they usually refrain from printing ones which advocate violence directed towards the readers (and employees) of the paper.
- baddox 6y ago
  Of course news agencies should report that the US Senator has that opinion. There are plenty of news agencies that reported on the fact that the NYT published this opinion piece, for instance, and I don’t think people are too upset about those reports. It’s the publishing of the opinion piece that is the issue.
  - leereeves 6y ago
    News agencies shouldn't report that because the Senator didn't say that. He made it very clear he was talking about rioters and looters, not protestors: > Those excuses are built on a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters. A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants. And nowhere in the op-ed did he call for murdering or killing anyone.
    - bagels 6y ago
      "One thing above all else will restore order to our streets: an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers" Killing is what the military does. Trump has declared that the protests are lead by terrorist "Antifa". The police were already gassing, shooting and brutalizing protesters. I don't know what other conclusion to draw about what "overwhelming force" and "dominating" would mean in this context besides murdering people.
      - 6y ago
zimpenfish 6y ago
> if Hitler/Xi/Kim were to publish an opinion piece in NYT, should they reject it or should they publish it? They did publish a chunk of Mein Kampf back in 1941, only adding a single small paragraph of context.
specialist 6y ago
The problem is soliciting an outrageous policy statement and then uncritically publishing it, without any kind of pushback.

by hkai 6y ago

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.
    - DagAgren 6y ago
      It was handled that way only after first handling it incredlby, horrendously badly. They were dragged kicking and screaming by their entire staff into handling it correctly only after a week of absolutely bungling it.
      - jkestner 6y ago
        I subscribe to the Times for that staff. I skip over the clickbait of the Stephenses and Brookses and read Blow and Bouie.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jki275 6y ago
I'm quite certain the Senator did not call for the murder of protestors. I actually read the article. While as a life-long military person I don't agree with his conclusions, you are mischaracterizing his article and I strongly suspect haven't read it.
lawnchair_larry 6y ago
It was a piece calling for the government to murder protesters which the editor solicited and published without reading. Now, you too are making things up. This is where “fake news” charges come from. Here’s what it actually said: Those excuses are built on a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters. A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants. But the rioting has nothing to do with George Floyd, whose bereaved relatives have condemned violence. On the contrary, nihilist criminals are simply out for loot and the thrill of destruction, with cadres of left-wing radicals like antifa infiltrating protest marches to exploit Floyd’s death for their own anarchic purposes. These rioters, if not subdued, not only will destroy the livelihoods of law-abiding citizens but will also take more innocent lives. Sounds reasonable to me. This also proved correct. And I agree with the article.
- unethical_ban 6y ago
  >On the contrary, nihilist criminals are simply out for loot and the thrill of destruction, with cadres of left-wing radicals like antifa infiltrating protest marches to exploit Floyd’s death for their own anarchic purposes. It does constitute an opinion, but an incorrect one. Taking over a police station and a city hall in Seattle, for example, is pretty impressive - and it strikes violence at the heart of perceived violence. No, Antifa is not a club or an organization. There is no membership. And there is no bouncer at the protests to make sure everyone is on the same page or of the same opinion - it is flat out inevitable that some people will be of poor opinion and behavior. The Right's framing of the relatively small amount of violence is indicative of a police state. The reaction by police unions in the face of calls for punishing abusive cops is indicative of the violent arm of the state protecting its own absolute authority over the people.
  - specialist 6y ago
    I stopped participating in public protests because there's as yet no effective way to counter, neutralize provocateurs.

dagmx 6y ago

Vox actually covers this really well https://www.vox.com/2020/6/5/21280425/new-york-times-tom-cotton-send-troops-staff-revolt https://www.vox.com/2020/6/5/21280425/new-york-times-tom-cot... Basically it boils down to: * it was a fairly dangerous opinion with fabrications that weren’t vetted by the editorial team * it was disrespectful and dangerous to the safety of their employees of color. The safety of people should not be a partisan issue * it compromised the reporting abilities of other arms of the NYT

twybrobdingnag 6y ago
What I found fascinating in this story is that NYT claims with a straight face that the respective piece is dangerous specifically to their employees of color. I can see how one can hyperventilate 'military in the streets' to 'military shooting live ammunition indiscriminately into masses of peaceful protestors', and I can see how they'd imagine their brave reporters being in the front lines to keep us informed, but I just can't imagine the thought process behind 'and the bullets avoid white / asian NYT reporters and crew members and specifically target the ones with melanin above a certain level'.
- DagAgren 6y ago
  > but I just can't imagine the thought process behind 'and the bullets avoid white / asian NYT reporters and crew members and specifically target the ones with melanin above a certain level'. Bullets don't fly on their own accord. Someone aims them.
  - twybrobdingnag 6y ago
    That is a serious accusation. What evidence do you have that this hypothetical you are constructing has any bearing to reality? I remember a time when 'innocent until proven guilty' was a guiding principle of public conversation. These days we gleefully accuse people of hypothetical crimes. How about we stop doing that?
    - 6y ago

freshhawk 6y ago

Obviously you reject it, and you publish a story about how this person wanted to publish an opinion piece advocating war crimes, because that's the part that is news. Also, this is so obvious, to so many parts of the political spectrum that pretending to not understand it is "telling on yourself" in modern parlance.

plorkyeran 6y ago

"A US Senator thinks we should deploy the military domestically to murder protestors" is pretty important news that the NYT should be covering, and I think there's a fair argument for publishing the piece as part of that coverage. That isn't what the NYT did though; they dropped it as an opinion piece that they implicitly endorsed. Newspapers fairly regularly print opinion pieces that run contrary to the normal bias of the paper, but they usually refrain from printing ones which advocate violence directed towards the readers (and employees) of the paper.

baddox 6y ago
Of course news agencies should report that the US Senator has that opinion. There are plenty of news agencies that reported on the fact that the NYT published this opinion piece, for instance, and I don’t think people are too upset about those reports. It’s the publishing of the opinion piece that is the issue.
- leereeves 6y ago
  News agencies shouldn't report that because the Senator didn't say that. He made it very clear he was talking about rioters and looters, not protestors: > Those excuses are built on a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters. A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants. And nowhere in the op-ed did he call for murdering or killing anyone.
  - bagels 6y ago
    "One thing above all else will restore order to our streets: an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers" Killing is what the military does. Trump has declared that the protests are lead by terrorist "Antifa". The police were already gassing, shooting and brutalizing protesters. I don't know what other conclusion to draw about what "overwhelming force" and "dominating" would mean in this context besides murdering people.
    - 6y ago

zimpenfish 6y ago

> if Hitler/Xi/Kim were to publish an opinion piece in NYT, should they reject it or should they publish it? They did publish a chunk of Mein Kampf back in 1941, only adding a single small paragraph of context.

specialist 6y ago

The problem is soliciting an outrageous policy statement and then uncritically publishing it, without any kind of pushback.