Some reporting that stems from today's @nytimes video staff meeting: Editorial Page Editor James Bennet appeared rattled and spoke minimally in proportion to his role in the Tom Cotton op-ed climbdown.
@nytimes He did apologize for the "pain" caused by his leadership, and the statement appeared to cover the Cotton imbroglio as well as other incidents in the past.
@nytimes Publisher A.G. Sulzberger said that the Cotton op-ed never should have been published and that the op-ed process at the New York Times is broken. That said, he expressed support and appreciation for Bennet and his section. The praise lasted several beats and wasn't pro forma.
@nytimes The obvious question for Sulzberger was this: How could he say now that the op-ed shouldn't have been written after he sent an internal email on Thursday endorsing its publication? That email, explained Sulzberger, was a "placeholder" as the paper investigated.
@nytimes Flimsy reasoning of that sort should never be presented to hundreds of the world's best journalists. Yet there it was.
@nytimes The job now for the opinions section of the New York Times is to revamp its approach to op-eds. There's a lot of discussion as to whether Bennet is the person to repair a process that has broken down under his supervision.
@nytimes One topic of discussion appears to be internal op-ed forums. The opinions section under Andy Rosenthal created an email group called "Op-Discuss," which included 30-40 people. Drafts circulated and people fed back.
@nytimes According to sources, Op-Discuss was pretty much mothballed under Bennet's leadership. Perhaps such a mechanism would have triggered a broader discussion about the merits of the Cotton op-ed.
