Here is the core problem with the publication philosophy of the NYT commentary section. It assumes that its readers get all of their ideas there and do not read or consume any other commentary source. Thus the Times has a responsibility to cover the waterfront....
Of course, the reality is that virtually all of its readers consume commentary from a wide variety of sources of which the Times is only one. The idea that an idea won't get to its readers if the Times doesn't present it is ludicrous....
By running crappy right-wing columns, it is not only wasting the time of its readers, but giving respectability and notice to bad ideas, ideas that don't deserve serious consideration in the marketplace of ideas....
If the Times was attracting right-wing subscribers by runs the likes of Cotton, Stephens at al., that would be perfectly justifiable. But everyone knows that virtually no right-winger EVER reads the Times. All it is doing is pissing off its core subscribers...
who by and large are moderates and progressives. They resent that the only large and influential progressive voice in this country keeps throwing life lines to the enemies of science, democracy and all the other things the right is trying desperately to destroy....
It's important to understand that the right does not operate this way. The Wall Street Journal editorial page for example never allows progressive voices to appear. It knows its audience better than the Times knows its audience. It would lose a ton of subscribers if it allowed...
a progressive voice to appear regularly on its editorial page, where they expect nothing but rigid adherence to the right wing line of the day. Indeed, the Journal prides itself on setting the line of the day on the issues it emphasizes, esp tax policy.
What the Times should do is view itself as just one part of a media landscape that already includes a great many--too many--right wing voices that its subscribers have easy access to. It should recognize that an open society is under siege as it has not been since the Civil War.
As the most powerful progressive voice in the country, it is irresponsible for the Times to not use all of its resources to defend ideas that the right would literally snuff out if it could. Like I said, there is zero balance in the right wing media b/c it is pure propaganda.
If the Times wants to expose its readers to right-wing ideas, there is a simple alternative--assign reporters to cover those ideas in the news section. Interview people like Tom Cotton rather than dignifying his ideas by giving him a platform....
In an article or interview, rather than an op-ed, reporters can factcheck and interview others of equal stature who can counter and refute fascist ideas that never receive pushback in the right-wing media. The Times used to have a reporter whose only job was to cover the right...
But that slot appears to have been cut some years ago. There are writers on the left who are very knowledgeable about the ideas of the right and can put them into context. Jeet Heer of The Nation, for example. Corey Robin is another who would make an excellent columnist....
I think it is absolutely essential to this nation's future that right-wing ideas be defeated by progressive ideas. The Times has a special responsibility because it has the resources no other institution has. Its current editorial philosphy is deeply wrongheaded and must change.
