What the fuuuuuuuck is wrong with you, @nytopinion? JFC.
This is one of society's most prominent institutions signalling, unmistakably, that fascism is a legitimate "side" in a two-sided debate. Just unbelievably irresponsible.
The right way for the @nytimes to handle this would have been a *news story*, in which a reporter breaks the news that a sitting US senator submitted an openly fascist op-ed to the paper, supporting behavior grossly at odds with American ideals.
There's nothing more bizarre & pathological than a journalistic institution remaining neutral in the face of values that, if taken seriously, *would make journalism impossible*. There would be no free press in a country run by Tom Cotton. Is the NYT really ok with that "side"?
Two options for NYT:
1. Opinion side: "let's hear from fascists, they have some good points."
2. News side: "fascists have taken over the GOP & are running loose in the federal gov't."
Both options let readers know that Tom Cotton is a fascist. But they are not equivalent.
1. Opinion side: "let's hear from fascists, they have some good points."
2. News side: "fascists have taken over the GOP & are running loose in the federal gov't."
Both options let readers know that Tom Cotton is a fascist. But they are not equivalent.
Well, well, well, the extremely rare NYT mea culpa! They must have gotten an *unbelievable* amount of shit about this behind the scenes. (Super extra hilarious that this comes even as B. Weiss is out embarrassing herself defending the piece.)
Though I would very much like to hear exactly *what part* didn't meet their standards. Was it the rushed process, the factual mistakes, or the open fascism? I'd like to know which precise thing they are apologizing for -- and what exactly they will try to avoid in the future.
"According to one employee, Sen. Tom Cotton’s column has netted the Times its highest-ever number of cancellations in a single hour." slate.com/news-and-polit…
One last thought: as I said in this piece, @nytopinion faces a stark dilemma. If it wants to accurately represent the views of the current US right, it must publish factually inaccurate & morally repugnant material. The one directly entails the other. vox.com/policy-and-pol…
And if it can't find anything from the Trumpist right to publish that meets basic standards of decency & accuracy...well, that's notable, isn't it? Maybe it ought to tell readers THAT story.
"To me, debating influential ideas openly, rather than letting them go unchallenged, is far more likely to help society reach the right answers."
What part of "let's kick the shit out of the hippies" has been insufficiently debated in the US?
nytimes.com/2020/06/04/opi…
What part of "let's kick the shit out of the hippies" has been insufficiently debated in the US?
nytimes.com/2020/06/04/opi…
Holy. Shit.
This account of the NYT staff meeting is instructive on so many levels. Staff is so far ahead of leadership in their understanding of the moment. vice.com/en_us/article/…
