JFC.
Woke up and learned rather fundamental "free speech ≠ free reach" discussion hasn't penetrated to the NYTimes op-ed editors.
Weird mix of both-siderism and neurotic need to offer "contrary view" to choose to use NYT to amplify this, a view already widely expressed online?
Woke up and learned rather fundamental "free speech ≠ free reach" discussion hasn't penetrated to the NYTimes op-ed editors.
Weird mix of both-siderism and neurotic need to offer "contrary view" to choose to use NYT to amplify this, a view already widely expressed online?
But hey, someone who has actually been on the internet later woke up and changed the headline to at least indicate that while the NYTimes may /publish/ people who think giving Minneapolis the full Fallujah treatment is great, it is not the paper's own, explicit, editorial line.
I can't imagine what this was like especially for black NYTimes employees, and across the company and newsroom.
And spare a thought for the (black) editor, who just may be thinking "I did NOT need this in my life", but doesn't have a say in decision... nytimes.com/2017/12/03/ins…
And spare a thought for the (black) editor, who just may be thinking "I did NOT need this in my life", but doesn't have a say in decision... nytimes.com/2017/12/03/ins…
