Senator Tom Cotton's op-ed for the @NYTimes was explosive and caused a senior editor, James Bennet, to resign for running a “non-factual” piece. But, other politicians, such as Iran’s Foreign Minister, have never had their non-factual pieces so severely scrutinized.
THREAD ⬇️
THREAD ⬇️
1-On June 3, Senator Tom Cotton wrote an op-ed in which he said the military should have the authority to quell “rioters and looters”. Whether readers agree or disagree with Cotton, they all understand that they’re merely reading an opinion.
2-But, a senior editor, James Bennet, was forced to resign for running a “non-factual” piece. If facts have always been a standard for NYTimes op-eds, I wonder why Iran’s Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif, has been allowed to publish non-factual opinions.
3-In one such example — among many to come — Javad Zarif wrote the following about Iran’s so-called efforts at bringing about peace in the Middle East. nytimes.com/2017/05/26/opi…
4-Zarif does NOT state that the Revolutionary Guards ran sieges in Syria that caused the starvation of Syrian civilians. Iran’s role in managing these sieges & preventing civilians from escaping has been highlighted by many Syrian activists. tinyurl.com/y8m3dasc
5- But the Revolutionary Guards helped the Syrian army to bomb cities. While Zarif lauds Iran’s efforts at stemming the tide of ISIS, scholars have shown that Assad deliberately overlooked the expansion of ISIS in Syria to weaken his opposition. jstor.org/stable/26297329
6-Did this error slip the attention of New York Times editors? Or, does the New York Times have two sets of standards for op-eds? Why does Javad Zarif get to say what he wants when Tom Cotton cannot?
