What, no room at Breitbart Inn for our weary traveler, Senator Cotton?
Funny part is that that Times’ vague justification works to save their asses if authoritarians prevail: Don’t execute us—we ran Tom cotton’s piece!
5 Likes
“quashes all demonstrations”
Oh, but the Good Ol’ Klan Boys and AmNazis with their long guns are still just fine.
3 Likes
The NYT- once again practicing the low art of self-flagellation with a feather duster.
Sometimes, I think the people at the Times making these decisions are living in an alternate universe. Other times, I wish they were.
But her emails…
6 Likes
But that’s disingenuous. Why not just have him say his horrible thoughts himself. And do you honestly think hiding that way of thinking is the best way to combat it? I can’t imagine anyone here is that unaware of the nature of ideas and thoughts. No, you let little Hitler say his piece, and then you help explain why it’s such a horrible way to think. Or, ignore it, let it fester, see what happens (spoiler: ww2).
8 Likes
There is no defense for running that Op-Ed. They don’t run everything federal officials send them. They don’t run everything Senators send them. They decided this was worthy of being amplified.
`
`It’s telling that
—
@JBennet
has run pieces by Tom Cotton advocating for military intervention in US
cities and making the case for buying Greenland, but rejected these
pieces from Cotton’s senate colleague. pic.twitter.com/5LdlYmdgKr
Parker Molloy (@ParkerMolloy) June
4, 2020
6 Likes
As much as Cotton, Trump and-the-rest rail against WAPO and NYT; they dream and obsess of being quoted by and writing op-eds because they realize it lends them the legitimacy they crave.
But it’s destroying the credibility of both papers.
5 Likes
Tom Cotton is the NYT version of “There are very fine people on both sides.”
4 Likes
No.
But if they do want to publish his actual words, they could put his column in a box and preface it with something like “What Cotton writes in the following column is fascist. It is heinous and unconstitutional. These are his words.”
But they don’t. They treat it like it’s just as legitimate as your opinion that the sky is blue.
8 Likes
It has taken an extremely long time to cancel my NYTimes subscription: must be a large call volume…
One imagines panic on the Editorial Board.
3 Likes
“We understand that many readers find Senator Cotton’s argument painful, even dangerous,” Bennet wrote. “We believe that is one reason it requires public scrutiny and debate.”
Then it should have been the subject of a news article or part of an interview. Like it or not, choosing to publish the opinion of a very powerful person who already has the ability to be heard in numerous news outlets and interviews on major television shows implies tacit agreement with the published opinion.
6 Likes
What’s next, an op-ed by Steve King?
2 Likes
I canceled my subscription as I’m not going to pay for full throated fascism in a newspaper.
Brooks, Stephens, and Douthit’s reflexive bothsiderism was bad enough.
If they has fact checked Cotton, and paired it with a responsible non authoritarian editorial, I wouldn’t be.
3 Likes
I see many reasoned and well thought out responses to this tweet:
https://twitter.com/JBennet/status/1268328283646521344
But the one that pretty well summed it up for me was this one.
https://twitter.com/drewmagary/status/1268333708567871491
2 Likes
That would be editorializing and up to NYT. Sadly, I don’t think they have the fortitude to do that. I think it is a good idea, to preface what he wrote for some historical context for both ideas like his and also the people who share those ideas. I mean, that would be pretty good journalism, because a legislator expressed his opinion, and we get some historical context for the opinion. That’s a good way to fight those ideas. Ideas don’t die… You can’t kill them. BUT, you can devalue them to oblivion. I do agree with you, though, NYT could have done it better.
6 Likes
Perhaps we should start with Little Rock. It worked out so well for the Republicans the last time a Republican President sent troops there.
2 Likes
You expressed my feelings about this better than I could have - thanks!
1 Like
The Times could, of course, have interviewed Cotton or written an article about his fascist views. Giving him Op-Ed space isn’t saying that he’s right, but it is endorsing his views as part of the mainstream of American political thought.
And within their own context, they’re right. The NYT has always deferred to the powerful. They’ve made every effort to normalize the Republican president’s lunatic ravings, and now fascism is in the mainstream of elite opinion.
This is all just a preview. When the contours of the climate crisis come into focus, and it is clear that we either solve it by using the vast accumulated wealth of the richest or condemn vast numbers to misery and death, I have a pretty good idea on whose side the NYT will be.
6 Likes
The Times is supporting Facism with this article. Why not print Hitler’s and Mussolini’s speeches.
2 Likes
Well, yes. That was the point of Tom Cotton’s op-ed. Big White Military Smash The Uppity Negroes.
6 Likes