A few thoughts on the @nytimes Cotton op-ed fiasco, as it reveals so much about the “paper of record,” the broader media environment in which it operates, and American politics in general – with links to comments by others that I found particularly important or incisive. 1/
As the higher-ups at the @nytimes now admit, publishing an op-ed in which a senator – shortly after basically demanding via tweet that civilians be executed – calls for the use of military force to quash protests, was a terrible decision. 2/
It was a terrible decision on several levels. As many people have pointed out, the piece is bad regardless of what you think of Cotton's position. The op-ed is factually dishonest, full of misleading claims, actively pushing disinformation 3/
It is also badly written and, as @LarryGlickman has noted, “intellectually lazy” – because of course it is 4/
The process which led to the publication was also terrible. While the editor of the editorial page was quick to defend the decision to publish the piece, he has since admitted that he hadn’t even read it before giving it the green light. 5/
But while those are all important points, it’s imperative not to focus too much on the process or the poor quality of the writing. The crucial point is that it’s extremely problematic for the @nytimes to provide a platform for such a militaristic, authoritarian vision. 6/
Let’s look at some of the arguments FOR publishing the op-ed first. Predictably, some people went with the rather idiotic “Don’t censor opinions you don’t like.” 7/
It’s really not a serious argument, as a U.S. senator obviously has a platform regardless of whether or not he gets to write an op-ed in the NYT, as @pashulman and many others have noted. 8/
The real question is: Is this someone and something for which the NYT should provide a platform in this way? And that’s a question that has absolutely nothing with to do with censorship. 9/
Also, the fact that the NYT actually solicited the piece – after seeing Cotton’s tweet in which he basically called for the execution of civilians! – further undermines the nonsensical idea that NOT doing that would have amounted to censoring Cotton 10/
Then there’s the reasoning offered by James Bennet himself: the NYT needs to provide its readers “counter-arguments.” 11/
It’s an absurd position to take, if you think about it for more than three seconds. Here’s @mccormick_ted demonstrating in one tweet why it’s so utterly nonsensical 12/
Leave it to David Brooks to make the dumbest-possible version of this “we need counter-arguments” take: It makes him think, he says. Well then… 13/
Here, however, is @yeselson making an argument that I think is important and with which we really need to grapple, even though I ultimately disagree in this particular case: 14/
Generally speaking, I absolutely think every serious media institution in America has an obligation to make it known to the public who these people really are, what the American right really is (and has been for a long time). 15/
It’s an argument that @drvox has been making for years: Don’t try to make the right seem reasonable (by hiring Brooks and Stephens and all those people who are irrelevant within the conservative movement) – let the world see! 16/
But I still think this case is different. Because making your readers aware of who these right-wingers are doesn’t mean giving them a platform and amplify their spin entirely unopposed. 17/
Confronted with a U.S. senator calling for the military to be deployed against protesters, for military violence against civilians, the NYT had several options. No one is saying: Don’t report on this, don’t talk about it. 18/
Here’s what they could have done: Tell the readers what Cotton was advocating (it wasn’t a secret: he had been tweeting it out!), and then call for his resignation, call on his GOP colleagues to shun him, dare them to show their true colors. 19/
Instead, they asked him to write an op-ed. And that means he got away with zero scrutiny, unlike in a news story, and ample room to spin and spread misinformation unopposed 20/
Most importantly: Just by publishing it in this way, the NYT helped to establish Cotton’s militaristic authoritarianism as a justifiable position on the legitime spectrum of opinions (instead of branding it as off the spectrum), as an argument worthy of consideration. 21/
Initially, James Bennet specifically said: hey, we need to hear the “counter-argument.” And there you have it: Cotton is no longer an extremist harboring fascist fantasies, but someone with an argument legitimate enough to deserve this platform. 22/
None of this is new or surprising, of course, as @beccalew has noted 23/
And in case anyone’s wondering: Cotton knows exactly what he was doing and what he has accomplished 24/
It’s been a super successful strategy for the right for decades – but it has only ever worked because of the mainstream media’s complicity, as @SethCotlar reminds us 25/
And here we are. Are things going to change? I’ll believe it when I see it. But there might be hope – and that’s because the good people working for the NYT made their stand, publicly, violating company policy in the process. We should be grateful to them. /end
Addendum: This, by @yeselson, is interesting and strikes me as a reasonable way the NYT could have handled this. But as he rightfully notes, it’s – sadly – probably not something the higher-ups at the paper could see themselves doing.
