.@nytopinion neither has to seek out nor publish such racist authoritarian tripe.
Tom Cotton already has a Senate seat and all the microphones that come with it. He doesn't need the Times to amplify him further.
What an embarrassment.
Tom Cotton already has a Senate seat and all the microphones that come with it. He doesn't need the Times to amplify him further.
What an embarrassment.
What public good comes from publishing this? None. What harm to the ability of Times reporters trying to cover oppressed communities, certainly some, maybe a lot. Internal newsroom relations, also.
When Tom Cotton sent this in (presuming @nytopinion did not solicit it) it would have been an easy "no thanks, full up."
Maybe he would have been a snowflake about it.
But. Who. Cares.
Maybe he would have been a snowflake about it.
But. Who. Cares.
Makes you wonder what kind of shit Tom Cotton got into while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, doesn't it.
So yes, publishing that op-ed is proving to be a reporting problem for @nytimes journalists:
And yes, as i predicted (because it was utterly predictable) there's a huge internal upheaval over the op-ed. Again, what. was. the. point.
Except to confirm the Times' terrible bias for both-sidering, which they think is brave and really its the opposite
Except to confirm the Times' terrible bias for both-sidering, which they think is brave and really its the opposite
All media orgs fuck up. They're complex entities made up of tons of complex people, things move fast, people have better or worse ears for how things will be heard. But this was like intentionally fashioning a hand grenade and then throwing it into your own office.
To wit:
Here’s the Times’ union:
This is a terrible defense of this decision (because there is none) and Bennet should in no way still be in the running to be Executive Editor of the Times. It's clear he cannot listen to external or internal critiques.
And the Times needs a public editor
And the Times needs a public editor
wtf does this "allows" mean, exactly? 
Not publishing Tom Cotton is not censoring Tom Cotton. He's a US Senator who has ample ways to get his views out. His incendiary tweets already did. His Fox appearances ditto. He can pen a damn Medium post. HIS views are not the ones being ignored.
Jesus, this is not hard.
Jesus, this is not hard.
Since I've already burned bridges, let me be clear. There's a parasite in American journalism. And that's about who is. considered viable for CNN and other TV perches. Look who's rushing to defend this op-ed. Overwhelmingly: those contracts as commentators, or those who want them
This is a toxic poison in journalism and anyone who says otherwise should not be trusted.
Ask any journalist defending this op-ed if they have a contract with any TV news outlet. Guarantee you'll get 🦗🦗🦗🦗
I mean... for starters:
Just want to remind everyone that Tom Cotton said we should give "no quarter" to protestors and that's the language that Confederate leaders used to signal massacres of Black Union soldiers. Read this lawyer blog on that: lawandcrime.com/george-floyd-d…
The great journalism of the Times mostly outweighs the things it does badly. But when it errs, look to arrogance as the reason. Look at Bennet's justification. It presumes that publishing Cotton was a balance to other Times editorials/work. As if only its coverage exists/matters.
"We don't publish just any argument—they need to be accurate, good faith explorations of the issues of the day"
Re accuracy: Times own reporting contradicts parts of Cotton's piece. This is piling a bad defense on a bad defense. Stop circling the wagons.
Re accuracy: Times own reporting contradicts parts of Cotton's piece. This is piling a bad defense on a bad defense. Stop circling the wagons.
I mean if you want to argue that Cotton's op-ed was "good-faith" fascism you can do that I suppose.
The Times defending its own indefensible actions while the police do the same.
Sure, they're more erudite about it.
Sure, they're more erudite about it.
Also a helpful reminder from a former colleague:
