Op-Ed Sections, Threat or Menace?

[Azrael]

NYT staffers are mad because they think it's the wrong opinion. (I think it is, too.) They'd gladly run something beneath sound practice if it conformed to their worldview. It'd be in pursuit of "a larger truth" or something.

Tom Cotton is the "no quarter"* guy, so the opposite of this opinion piece is a "Kill the police" opinion piece.

Not gonna run in the NYT.



*like 'tear gas,' a violation of the Geneva Conventions

 

[Azrael]

New York Times public editor: Sen. Cotton's op-ed was dishonest, not only reprehensible

 

[Alma]

New York Times public editor: Sen. Cotton's op-ed was dishonest, not only reprehensible

The core problem with Cotton's column, it seems to me, isn't that its arguments are painful or dangerous (though they are those things too). It's that it's built on lies.

Here are the "lies" that Snyder suggests Cotton made:

"This week, rioters have plunged many American cities into anarchy, recalling the widespread violence of the 1960s," it begins, before trotting out hyperbolic (and false) phrases like "the riots were a carnival for the thrill-seeking rich as well as other criminal elements," "orgy of violence," and "cadres of left-wing radicals like Antifa infiltrating protest marches."

So I suppose Snyder is saying there are four lies here. Four statements.

Lie one: This week, rioters have plunged many American cities into anarchy, recalling the widespread violence of the 1960s

Is that a lie? I dunno. It's certainly an opinion. It made many think of the 60s. I don't think the cities were anarchy, but, if one did, I'm not sure I'd call it a lie. I know the anarchy sign was up and about in various places.

Lie two: "the riots were a carnival for the thrill-seeking rich as well as other criminal elements"

Is that a false statement? Well, it's hyperbolic as it relates to the "thrill-seeking rich," but is that statement a provable lie, or Cotton's impression?

Lie three: "orgy of violence"

I don't happen to agree with Cotton there - I don't even know what an orgy of violence is outside of war - but the term is used for a effect. I'm not sure it's meant to be fact-checked.

Lie four: Cadres of left-wing radicals like Antifa infiltrating protest marches

I actually think this is going to turn out to be a lie in many cities. Antifa is loosely defined, but I don't think the core of that movement made it out to most protests.

Now, I didn't care for Cotton's tone. I don't agree with it. But these are the "lies" on which Snyder said the column is built. It's not the greatest case, on those terms.

Mostly, I think it's just a bad, wrong opinion that a lot of people on the left justly didn't like, and hence thought should not have a platform in the NYT.

 

[Regan MacNeil]

 

[Alma]

Eh. It was a bad opinion that blew up in their face.

Rushed editorial process? You mean, the one where the NYT asks itself whether or not a bad opinion will get its employees mad at them?

A paper without bad opinions is rarely a good idea. Ditto for the world. You need them to better clarify the good ones.

Tom Cotton's opinion is apparently so scary it can kill people. That's a lot of power afforded to a man who doesn't deserve it. (And didn't ask for it.)

 

[3_Octave_Fart]

Cotton might be the most power-hungry person in that circle.

He advocated using raw power on Americans. We don't need a postmodern deconstruction of that. It's quite plain.

I would say it torpedoes his presidential ambitions, but he has the broad charisma of a turnip to begin with.

 

[Alma]

 

[Michael_ Gee]

Every post by Weiss cited by Alma has been contradicted by posts of NYT reporters, who are by company policy not allowed to criticize op-ed writers. Use your forking reporting skills. Who is telling the truth, and who's a lying sack of shirt?

 

[MeanGreenATO]

The traditionalist in me believes it's good for a national audience to know what he believes. And because of his op-ed, that sentiment is likely larger and they can vote accordingly.

Problem today is we're not as news savvy as we once was, so it might be time to toss the old rules out.

 

[Alma]

Every post by Weiss cited by Alma has been contradicted by posts of NYT reporters, who are by company policy not allowed to criticize op-ed writers. Use your forking reporting skills. Who is telling the truth, and who's a lying sack of shirt?

How can her opinion - which is what it is - be a lie? Do young journalists inside the NYT actually not feel that way?

 

[TrooperBari]

How can her opinion - which is what it is - be a lie? Do young journalists inside the NYT actually not feel that way?

It appears the displeasure over Cotton's pieces goes well beyond the "young wokes".

 

[Twirling Time]

The problem we ran into when I ran the edit page is that we had a smorgasbord of conservative columnists and they all hated Trump. ("Git that libruhl Joo Jennifer Rubin off my editorial page!" etc.)