NYT published op-ed from a U.S. Senator urging use of military to help prevent rioting = staffers throw a tantrum, editor gets fired, paper apologizes.
Now same paper publishes op-ed w radical/unpopular view on abolishing police that would have deadly consequences = silence.
Now same paper publishes op-ed w radical/unpopular view on abolishing police that would have deadly consequences = silence.
The contrast couldn't be clearer. It's obvious that tantrum was all about many in the media being unable to argue their positions and exclusively pursuing a strategy of silencing speech and speakers they don't fully agree with.
This illiberal trend has been growing on college campuses for years, and is now taking over the media. They are openly abandoning debating ideas for simply using mob-like force to punish anyone who might stray from the party line. It's dangerous and must be repudiated.
It should also be noted that many of the targets of these intolerant mobs are liberals who are actually interested in debating ideas and willing to consider other positions because they, above anyone on the right, are expected to show complete fealty.
That's why editors with an extensive history of promoting progressive ideas can be targeted for straying. Why a progressive reporter like Lee Fang can suddenly be branded a bigot and forced to apologize based on a reasonable point someone else made during an interview with him.
It is the same mob that demands colleges apologize for letting cops use bathrooms or demands someone be fired for posting an academic study arguing against effectiveness of violent protests, but here it has infected an institution tasked with fighting that sort of intolerance.
and the only way we change directions is for people to start speaking out against these intolerant mobs (regardless of whether you agree with the target), news organizations and companies to stop appeasing them, and consequences for those leading and promoting them.
