Taking anything @JBennet says here at face value may be naive, but taking it at face value exposes the moral myopia of the NYT.
His argument proceeds from the assumption that the Times has a voice and brand to which the Cotton piece is obviously a counter-point.
He is wrong.
His argument proceeds from the assumption that the Times has a voice and brand to which the Cotton piece is obviously a counter-point.
He is wrong.
The opinion page of the New York Times has been trending rightward for a long time. The "leftish" representative is middling moderates, lukewarm liberals, and vacillating centrists, all of whom are hyperconscious about avoiding the appearance of "liberal media bias".
Meanwhile... how many "token" conservatives has the NYT collected, "for balance" now? They go hard to the right, not concerned about balance because the myth, the idea, the alibi for their presence is that it's what provides balance. Got to balance out the "liberal NYT".
And some of this is the fact that the NYT, being a nearly two centuries old institution, is of course conservative. It's the liberal version of conservative. But it's a curmugeon.
But more is the fact that the right knows how to work the refs, and the media *loves* being worked.
But more is the fact that the right knows how to work the refs, and the media *loves* being worked.
So no, whatever the editorial board of the Old Gray Lady think of themselves, there is no canonical brand, no standing stance, that they can present "opposing voices" to and have it read, automatically, as "Obviously you know what we think. Here's someone who disagrees."
THEY know that publishing an opinion isn't meant as an endorsement. *I* know that.
But it is. Maybe not in the sense of "We submit that this is true." but it's an imprimatur of quality and importance. You're saying: this is worth considering.
But it is. Maybe not in the sense of "We submit that this is true." but it's an imprimatur of quality and importance. You're saying: this is worth considering.
@JBennet claims that he published the piece because readers need to know what powerful people in Washington think.
Mr. Bennet, that's NEWS you're talking about. It's NEWS that Cotton thinks this. And we learned what he thinks from his Twitter, same as you did.
Mr. Bennet, that's NEWS you're talking about. It's NEWS that Cotton thinks this. And we learned what he thinks from his Twitter, same as you did.
When you publish his opinion, you tell the world it's worthy of consideration. Not in need of debate. Worthy of consideration. It has the New York Times Seal of Quality on it. You can't simultaneously make bank off "The Old Gray Lady"/"Paper of Record" and deny that prestige!
If you think it needs to be debated... why did you not offer debate? Why, in an age when most people read articles as individual web posts and not one item in a single page, did you allow it to appear all by itself? That's all most people will see, no matter what else you print.
But I don't get the impression from @JBennet's apologetics that they really did offer a counter to Cotton's ideas, because in their mind, Cotton was the counter to theirs. He thinks the record of the New York Times stands on its own as a silent but powerful rebuke to Cotton.
Yes, this! Very much this! If Trump and Cotton himself aren't pointing to this and saying, "Even the Failing New York Times agreed!" I'll eat SEVERAL of my hats.
Do the NYT and @JBennet understand newspapers in the 21st century? I don't thinkt hey do.
Do the NYT and @JBennet understand newspapers in the 21st century? I don't thinkt hey do.
Moral myopia. @JBennet is being the guy at your work who does "ironic racism" and expects that this will do no harm because obviously you know he doesn't mean it because, come on, it's him, he's a good guy and he's obviously not racist.
He thinks the NYT itself stands in debate.
He thinks the NYT itself stands in debate.
But he didn't debate fascism; he published it.
I've laid out some specific challenges that, if he's not being disingenuous, should meet criteria for inclusion in the NYT. I've even followed him so I'll see if he replies and/or DMs me.
He won't.
I've laid out some specific challenges that, if he's not being disingenuous, should meet criteria for inclusion in the NYT. I've even followed him so I'll see if he replies and/or DMs me.
He won't.
He won't... probably because he won't even see them, I'm not verified and he's getting a jillion notifications. But as I said in that thread, I'm even more sure he won't respond if he sees them.
Because even if he's sincere on one level, he can't dwell on it or it falls apart.
Because even if he's sincere on one level, he can't dwell on it or it falls apart.
But I'm sincere, I am fully sincere. If the NYT will consent to print it, I will write a counterpoint essay, either to his apologetics or to Cotton's piece.
I think at the bare minimum the Times should publish a piece from an American advocating a military strike on Tom Cotton.
I think at the bare minimum the Times should publish a piece from an American advocating a military strike on Tom Cotton.
If the New York Times find it not just newsworthy that Tom Cotton is advocating the use of military force against us but worthy of elevation and inclusion in the opinion page, they MUST allow the opposing viewpoint. Not can. Not should. MUST. Let me make the case, @JBennet.
Please don't harass the guy but anybody of a higher profile or with journalistic connections who wants to carry this to his attention, please feel inordinately free. He wants debate? We deserve right of rebuttal. I will make the case for sending the troops against Tom Cotton.
Or for a military strike on the White House, as I first suggested in the thread. Either. I'm not picky. But if the party in power gets to threaten We The People with military force from the pages of the Old Gray Lady, I want right of reply. That's debate, isn't it?
I said I'm not picky but I have to say, I feel like the case for sending the military against Tom Cotton is probably the most in keeping with the spirit of the debate. It wouldn't be hard to make the case - he's threatened the country with military force!
And if he feels like this would somehow demean the New York Times, like the opinion that the military should be deployed against Tom Cotton and the administration is insufficiently serious... let me write an op-ed making the case for why the NYT Opinion page's approach fails.
If you want to talk about a topic where the view of the editorial board stands on its own and so must be debated by outsiders... the view of the editorial board on the nature of the opinion page is basically ground zero. Doesn't get rawer or purer a debate than that.
And because the NYT is ~*The Paper of Record*~ and because its work is important and its imprimatur is valuable... the public really, really would be served and served strongly by a public debate on how the opinion page comports itself, whether its theories of debate hold merit.
