Bennet had defended the publication of the op-ed at first, arguing that his section has “committed to Times readers to “provide a debate on important questions like this.”
Later, reports emerged that Bennet had admitted to Times’ staff that he had not read the essay prior to its publication.
This alone is perfect reasoning for firing the guy. How in hell does an editor approve something for publication that he or she hasn’t read?
Well they sure as hell needed a mitigating factor so I guess they just made some shit up. Saying they didn’t read it is a bit better than saying yeah we read it, knew it was crap, but decided to “both sides” and printed it.
The NYT has a space. If they’d quit pissing folks off in it they’d be surprised at how big that space is. But they keep trying to “expand” readership by hocking rib-eyes in a vegan mart and it’s not working. They need to quit trying to win over bullshit addicts, who demand bullshit and just get back to their flock. The educated folks around the world.
One of his Deputy Editors told NYT staff that he had read it and that it had been factchecked.
Well…
Sulzberger also said that Jim Dao, a deputy editorial page editor who had publicly taken responsibility as overseeing the editing of the piece, would be stepping off the masthead and reassigned to the newsroom.
That’s probably because he thinks that germs are a finite thing like a hot potato. Get rid of yours and make it someone else’s problem. After all potatoes don’t reproduce, right?
He read it and knew that Cotton was a saint amongst the authoritarian crowd and would “pull in” readers. IF that lame " we just wanted people to see this side of the argument" was true they could have written an Op Ed that featured Cotton’s words sandwiched between criticism of them.
An editor has one job, and that is to read the crap he is going to publish. He admits he didn’t read Cotton’s rewrite of Mein Kampf but published it anyway. He shouldn’t have been allowed to resign. He should have been fired. He shouldn’t get praise from his fellow editors and the publisher. He should be condemned.
I’m guessing that it was meant to be a reassuring wink and nod to its finance and corporate readers who may track somewhat liberal on certain social issues but are “law and order” types when it comes to civil unrest, with OWS still keeping them up at night. Like, don’t worry, we’ve got your backs. If this latest liberal protest thing doesn’t play out and starts to branch out into anti-1% territory, folks like Senator Cotton will protect you. At its heart the NYT is a paper by and for rich and white northeast Republicans, who literally founded it 170 years ago over the free soil issue. Ultimately the Civil War was about putting down an insurrection, which is how these readers likely view these protests.
This would all be OK if we could believe the Grey Lady leaned a lesson. I doubt that. In time the hallowed paper of record will be featuring and analyzing every lie the GOP can manufacture about Biden. Watch. It;s coming.
Ha! That´s a good line. But I think you give the Times´ readership too much credit. After all, they made Thomas Friedman into the ¨public intellectual¨ he is today.
Now you come to the important part: why did the White House ask a swab factory to sacrifice production to give Trumpp more free media coverage for his campaign?
Doesn’t the answer to that just circle back and reinforce @pl 's complaint? I think so.
Cotton is a fucking redneck decked out in a suit. He comes from a state that lynched folks then went to church. What he was asking for was not law and order ( it was actually illegal ) but a crackdown on folks that aren’t like him. He’s never penned an Op Ed about militias, white nationalists or white supremacists needed to be reigned in. Just Black folks and left leaning folks. I hate using the word fascist as it’s almost always hyperbolic but Cotton is an American fascist.
