The New York Times denounced on Thursday Sen. Tom Cotton’s (R-AR) “Send In the Troops” op-ed that called on the military to crack down on the nationwide unrest over the killing of George Floyd.
The NY Times
Always regretting after the fact
Always
Cleanup on Aisle 3
Why people are Turning to WaPO as the paper of record
‘Did Not Meet Our Standards’
Could you publish your standards? Pretty sure we could help you identify some other opinion pieces, and some op-eds, that also fail to qualify.
“This review made clear that a rushed editorial process led to the publication of an Op-Ed that did not meet our standards,” she said.
So why in the hell is not one of your standards to abstain from rushing the editorial process?
LOL. I posted that when this piece was published the NYT would find a way to walk it back and sure enough-they have tried but it really is an epic fail.
Shorter NYT: “It didn’t meet our standards but we published it anyway.”
FAIL.
You’re a day late and a dollar short, a$$hole$. You already published it: the time to think about whether it meets standards is before pushing {PRINT}.
[ETA]: The answer is not reducing the number of OP-ED pieces. The answer is to subject them to the same editorial scrutiny you apply to your internal operations. Jesus Christ on a stick, why do people think suppression will solve their problems?
The meteor didn’t strike after all.
If a literal zombie hitler rose from the grave today and entered politics the NYT would immediately hire zombie goebbels to write opinion pieces for the front page to ‘be fair to both sides’ they are so far down the false balance rabbit hole.
Yawn. I guess it would have been an ok op-Ed if the military rolled over and agreed to deploy across the country. I’m reminded of Kent Brockman pledging allegiance to his new ant overlords.
“As a trusted [news source] I can help you round up others to toil in your underground sugar caves.”
Well, my parrot reports that it met her standards just fine, that she’s never had a cage liner so satisfying to let loose on.
Knowing the author of the article, you’d think they would have taken the time to read and fact-check it before printing. Or at least put a disclaimer on it, like “the following represents the opinion of the author and includes factual inaccuracies” or have an accompanying column pointing out the false information. Even better- return the manuscript with edits required before publication. But I guess peer review is a scientific concept, not a journalistic one…
Oh, dear NYT, but it did meet your standards. And that’s the problem.
Sorry NYTimes…it LOOKS like you’re trying to play both sides one more time.
Find the person responsible and give them a promotion and a big raise!
That’s the usual way to make up for grievous errors in business, and it builds morale, as well.
Way too fucking little, way too fucking late, NYT. You ALWAYS do this. Fuck up journalism in a way that hurts Democrats, liberals and progressives and gives aid and comfort to RWNJ and their pet militias.
Just. Fucking. Stop. Fire every white man who works there and put black women in charge of everything. That’s the only way to fix this.
https://twitter.com/i/status/1268711125555838977
INSANE Video from our
SkyCam WOOOOOW
I bet you trump wet his depends when he heard this and ran back down to the bunker. One commenter wrote: It’s what happens when the anti Christ touches the Bible for a photo op
And Fox News is all up in arms.
I am pretty sure this ends with the firing of James Bennet…which it should. But the firing is only going to because they need a scapegoat, and has nothing to do with addressing the institutional rot that has been infesting the NYT for far too long.
Perhaps an introduction is in order:
“NYT? Standards. Standards? NYT. Now that you’ve met …”
