One recent action of the Times I think is "Hate inspiring" is how they handle Senator Tom Cotton's op ed where he argued for sending in military or national gua

One recent action of the Times I think is "Hate inspiring" is how they handle Senator Tom Cotton's op ed where he argued for sending in military or national guard to help with law and order during the BLM protests/riots. Cotton's essay didn't call for murdering the protesters or anything illegal, and I believe a significant percentage of the public supported the move, but the Times claimed it was so offensive that it shouldn't have been published and fired the head of the editorial section for allowing it. To me, it seems outrageous that a senator making arguments with some significant amount of public support are too offensive to be published in the NYT op ed section. It makes me feel like the whole paper has a very ideological bent such that they don't want to discuss things so much as tell their audience what to think. Incidents like this make me regard the NYT as a kind of mind-poison because they're showing you they want to manipulate and control what you think by preventing you from seeing different opinions.