“It is now quite common among journalists to think of opinions not as arguments to be advanced, engaged with, and potentially refuted, but as a kind of viral propaganda with the power to convert readers...” @DamonLinker 1a/
theweek.com/articles/91814…
theweek.com/articles/91814…
“On this view, published ideas are a kind of ideological contagion. If the ideas are good, they can serve as a kind of vaccination against evil. But if they are bad, they function as an intellectual and moral pathogen that are better off being eradicated.” @DamonLinker 1b/
In the 1950s, Catholic philosopher, Jacques Maritain, wrote, “If it were true that whoever knows or claims to know truth or justice cannot admit the possibility of a view different from his own...” 2/
“... and is bound to impose his true view on other people by violence, then the rational animal would be the most dangerous of beasts.” 3/
Those who “would like to impose truth by coercion,” as Maritain maintained, conflate an error in thinking with the humanity (or lack thereof) of the person whose thinking is in error. 4/
And this is where we find ourselves today. Instead of engaging in the “friendly and cooperative disagreement” that Maritain endorsed — or even unfriendly and uncooperative disagreement — we have come to a place where many of us believe that... 5/
“...man, when he is in error, has no rights of his own and should be banished from human fellowship.” (Maritain) This position prevents us from *just* engaging with the *content* of the Cotton op-ed; it prevents focusing on how bringing in the military is a policy... 6/
... that could put people’s lives in danger (something I happen to believe). Instead, we argue that anyone who proposes such a policy, regardless of his position in our government (and regardless of the fact that so many Americans don’t see that policy as unreasonable) ... 7/ 
... should be excluded from the pages of what was once called the paper of record — because his view is so abhorrent. Further, anyone whose hand touched the op-ed in its movement toward publication is now so morally contaminated as to be rendered irredeemably polluted... 8/
... @jimdao even felt the need to defend a junior staffer. Mobbing tactics skirted the paper’s professionalism & social media policies by claiming that the *publication of the opinion piece* (instead of the enactment of the policy it advocated) put staffers’ lives in danger. 9/
This post comes close to transparently describing the effort. Publishing the abhorrent idea was “embarrassing” to many people who take pride in working at a paper that tends to publish views that more closely align with their own. So they claimed it was a “labor issue.” 10/
Even those who, as @benyt’s piece reports, reject a newspapers’ obligation of journalistic objectivity & think news organizations’ “core value needs to be the truth” (& not a humble search for it) should at least be troubled by that particular tactic. 11/
nytimes.com/2020/06/07/bus…
nytimes.com/2020/06/07/bus…
We should all be troubled by it. 12/
Before resigning, @JBennet had made this case for accepting the piece:
It was important to show readers the argument for a dangerous policy that wasn’t just a fringe idea. 13/ nytimes.com/2020/06/04/opi…
It was important to show readers the argument for a dangerous policy that wasn’t just a fringe idea. 13/ nytimes.com/2020/06/04/opi…
Though we may wish it weren’t necessary to argue against military involvement in urban policing, we are at a moment in our country’s history when it is. Having a clear understanding of the argument for it makes it easier to argue against it. 14/nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opi…
The publisher says the problem is ppl think op-eds published in the Times are endorsed by it. So he needs to rethink how the Opinion section works. I think the readers may be smarter than he gives them credit for, but if not, shouldn’t adding a disclaimer solve that problem? 15/
When my co-authors and I wrote this in @politico, we were hopeful that the Times would turn around. Knowing that executives “thanked staffers for their public outrage” makes me less optimistic. But I’m not ready to give up yet. 16/
Some people inside the Times such as @NYTimesCohen & @powellnyt agree that publishing bad opinions (as long as they are well-written enough, clearly articulated, and newsworthy) is part of the job of a good paper — and necessary for a healthy democracy. (This is by Cohen.) 17/
We’ve seen what happened to the experienced editors who held that view (both of whom probably hired many of those staffers who called for their firing). 18/
.@JBennet, formerly a White House correspondent, is “the editor who gave Ta-Nehisi Coates the space to write the groundbreaking Case for Reparations . . . when few would entertain the idea.” (quoting Farah Stockman, NY Times national reporter). 19/
And @jimdao knows what it means for a NYTimes staffer to be in danger: He reported from Afghanistan in 2010 & 2011 in an award-winning year-long series that won him much deserved respect and acclaim. 20/
What happens to NY Times staffers who object to any of this... the disavowal of the op-ed’s publication, the high-profile resignations, the “rethinking” of the Opinion section — and what happens to dissenters’ willingness to speak their minds — remains to be seen. [end]
Epilogue: as someone whose op-ed (co-author @CampbellSocProf) was published in the days before this debacle (grateful to @risenc, @jimdao & @JBennet for publishing it), it doesn’t seem like publishing in the Times has the impact the staffers think it does. nytimes.com/2020/06/01/opi…
Meant to add this to the above tweet:
Addendum: meant to add this to the tweet below:
