NYT Opinion is three businesses. One of them — columnists — is wildly successful, the market leader. Nobody cares about any newspaper’s staff editorials (sorry). And the paper has had trouble deciding what its strategy is on contributed op-eds is, which has led to trouble.
It used to be that the NYT was THE place to put an op-ed. Maybe it or the WSJ. Your piece had to be there or it wouldn’t get read. This is not true anymore. But the paper still has an illusion that it is defining the conversation.
The WaPo realized that opinion space on the web is unlimited and so it started running a ton of op-eds, many of them pretty bad. They literally named the section “PostEverything.” And the NYT has shifted somewhat in that direction too.
But Times Opinion also has this idea that it should cover all sides of live political arguments. I believe this is why it runs op-eds from the likes of Putin and Maduro. Their opinions carry weight; it’s “necessary” to put them in the paper of record so they are recorded.
The combination of trying to publish way more while remaining authoritative will inherently lead to mistakes. I have qualms about the process of a newspaper being governed sideways by staff revolt, but I think it’s correct to say the paper shouldn’t have published this op-ed.
All of which is to say: I think running fewer contributed op-eds is a good idea, even though people are making fun of that part of the announcement.
