Just an absolutely perplexing decision by Military dot com to publish a repellent apology for mass murder 
"Sure he pled guilty and allocuted to going UA to kill all those people, mostly women and children, in their homes in the dead of night, but he insists they were bad dudes" is the sort of bad-faith jingoistic piffle that doesn't deserve a hearing in a reputable publication
Publishers face "both sides" pressure, as Mil dot com did when an astroturf group submitted this as a response to another column. One way to manage this is to publicly tell the "other" side their submission doesn't meet publication standards of facticity, good faith, and decency
That would have served the important purpose of showing that another opinion in fact exists within the publication's community, as well as the more important purpose of demonstrating that some opinions are inhumane nonsense and unworthy of a kiosk in the marketplace of ideas
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
