Op-Ed Sections, Threat or Menace?

I'll be keeping my NYT subscription. I'm not the type to just outright cancel support for a newspaper just because they publish an unpopular Op-Ed. The people who are doing that don't understand how a free press works.

Now, I do have a problem with James Bennet, the editorial editor, who did not read Cotton's piece nor advocate for any fact checking is problematic. His leadership and decision are questionable, and I'd support his resignation. I can't fathom him replacing Dean Baquet.

 

Not inclined to accept a vague ticktock leaked by Cotton's office to the NR at face value, either.

As I said, to me this was a straight up newspapering problem.

Run Cotton's call to arms in a box with a piece of equal length from someone constitutionally (or otherwise) opposed to use of the military and no one would have said a thing.

 

Updates from the 'palace coup'.

 

Did Cotton write that the military should be sent in to stop the looting in cities? Some Americans are actually in favor of that position. You know some people have lost their lives in the looting like 77 year old Dorn of St. Louis, even though most TV media won't touch that story as it doesn't fit the narrative. Whether you believe it or not some Americans agree with Cotton. Kudos to the Times for running it. Some people wanted the destruction and burning of cities stopped and the mayors weren't doing it.

 

He gone.

 

You hate to see it.

 

Absolutely basic newspapering fuck-up.

Had to go.

 

The sad truth is - cable news shows pull this crap all the time lining up the "both sides" argument - pitching a topic and then looking for pundits to speak to the various "sides" proposed by the cable nets. One - it creates a false narrative and Two - it gives the impression that both views have merit and are equally justified. Not even going to bother explaining how this has allowed various conspiracy theories and whackjobs to take root in the public marketplace of ideas.

 

This explains the vague NYT statement — still awaiting specificity — about standards. They went through their process. They were willing to give voice to a column they had read. If the head of the op ed division failed to read something so clearly controversial, he should be whacked. But the original statement still requires explanation.

 

It won’t surprise me if Stephens is out soon, and Weiss, too.

 

I doubt they'll be whacked. Perhaps they can parlay victimhood into gigs with Fox News or Breitbart or the oh-so-contemplative National Review, but the Times can't force them out now.

 

Unlike Douthat or even Brooks, Weiss and Stephens are lazy one-trick ponies who contribute nothing, nothing to the NYT opinion pages except to reinforce the publisher's profound belief that anything that discomforts him is bad.