NYT has put a note atop Cotton's op-ed, saying it "should not have been published," not because its views are "objectionable" but because it failed to meet "standards," including "factual" errors.
Bull. They're concocting excuses to renounce the piece. /1 nyti.ms/3ctvmYX
Bull. They're concocting excuses to renounce the piece. /1 nyti.ms/3ctvmYX
As evidence of "factual" problems, the note says Cotton makes "assertions about the role of 'cadres of left-wing radicals like antifa'; in fact, those allegations have not been substantiated."
Really? Here are a few clips that illustrate his claim. One is from NYT's site ... /2
Really? Here are a few clips that illustrate his claim. One is from NYT's site ... /2
1) 7ny.tv/30fp90y
2) bit.ly/30gjBTk
3) nyti.ms/2MBmypD
Are these clips airtight proof? No. Are they as strong as the evidence for many lefty op-eds published by NYT? Absolutely. That's NYT's real "standard." But for Cotton, they're inventing another. /3
2) bit.ly/30gjBTk
3) nyti.ms/2MBmypD
Are these clips airtight proof? No. Are they as strong as the evidence for many lefty op-eds published by NYT? Absolutely. That's NYT's real "standard." But for Cotton, they're inventing another. /3
The note goes on to plead that his "tone" was too "harsh." As Cotton goes, it's actually relatively mild. (Let's just say I'm not a fan.) But we've all read harsh lefty op-eds in NYT. By this point, the note is just spinning moral objections as matters of editorial quality. /4
Cotton's idea is bad. When we send troops abroad, they end up in tragic civilian clashes. Why replicate those tragedies at home?
But this note is a fraud. NYT is looking for a way to renounce an argument it regrets publishing. They pretend it's about "standards." It's not. /END
But this note is a fraud. NYT is looking for a way to renounce an argument it regrets publishing. They pretend it's about "standards." It's not. /END
