I also want to explain why they published the piece today by Senator Tom Cotton.
Here's why:
There exists a significant population in the USA who are very enthusiastic about a militarized force that functions to brutalize Black people.
This population likes seeing positive cases made for that sort of thing.
This creates a market.
The Times is a business.
There exists a significant population in the USA who are very enthusiastic about a militarized force that functions to brutalize Black people.
This population likes seeing positive cases made for that sort of thing.
This creates a market.
The Times is a business.
That's the reason. It's the only one.
If they wanted to report on the fact that a Senator was advocating horrors, they could have done that. Giving him space to make a positive case for horrors isn't a part of that.
They didn't offer Duterte a similar opportunity, for example.
If they wanted to report on the fact that a Senator was advocating horrors, they could have done that. Giving him space to make a positive case for horrors isn't a part of that.
They didn't offer Duterte a similar opportunity, for example.
So: that's the reason, and if we want to glean anything good out of the NYT's horrible judgment, it wouldn't be knowing the truth about Tom Cotton, which was evident already.
It's that there's a market for Tom Cotton, and some businesses are quite willing to try to capture it.
It's that there's a market for Tom Cotton, and some businesses are quite willing to try to capture it.
