Op-Ed Sections, Threat or Menace?

The problem with the NYT statement is that it doesn't say why the Cotton piece failed to meet their standards. Was it built on inaccuracy? Was it unnecessary inflammatory? Sam Kinison Back To School territory here. Say it.

 

COVID page-count reduction has wiped out our op-ed page. I'm guessing it's gone for good.

Can't remember the last time anyone of staff wrote an editorial; it has to be close to five years. Mostly the only thing in there were columns from other pubs in the chain/syndicated columns/politician submissions, with an occasional reader column (which were mainly election season columns like: "I support Joe Sixpack cause he's a real AMERICAN!").

Frankly, I don't think it's going to be missed by anyone.

 

Everyone's opinion looks the same on the internet - hell, we all have column sigs/avatars now too.

 

It's built on their employees not liking Tom Cotton's bad opinion. (And it is a bad opinion.)

 

This is 2020, where they no longer say the soft part soft. It probably positions him to win the next time the Republicans need to win back the presidency (which to be fair may never happen).

 

I don't know what the Times was expecting. You had a writer who suggested turning troops loose on Americans (who misbehaved). Most of the Times' readers are Americans. I'm guessing they don't support that line of thinking. I can't remember an official elected to federal office ever suggesting this.

 

This wasn't a process issue.

Tom Cotton's New York Times Op-Ed: The Inside Story | National Review


After several rounds of back of forth Monday and into Tuesday, Senator Cotton accepted the Times-approved topic. Then, the drafting process began, with the senator finishing the final version late on Tuesday. Around 7 a.m. on Wednesday, Cotton’s office delivered the piece to the Times.

There were at least three drafts back and forth. The Times would send along edits for approval, and the Cotton team would sign off, and then there would be another round.

The first two rounds focused on clarity and style, and the last round on factual accuracy.

Regarding the fact-checking, the Cotton staffer says, “It was pretty rigorous. We were going into the weeds.” They went through each sentence to make sure that it was supported and that the links said what they were represented as saying. “We were challenged on a couple of things,” he adds, “and actually made changes.”

 

Either Bennet read it, or he didn’t. If he did read it, it was reprehensible but at least he signed off on it. If he didn’t read it, that’s an abdication of responsibility and, in my opinion, a firing offense.

 

I'd be surprised if he's still there in a week, regardless.

 

How can an editor in charge of one fucking page of a newspaper not read everything on it before publication? That's insane.

 

Just another example of the lack of leadership that has created this moment in history.

 

Agreed.