Yes, and the damn things are always ghost written. Dopes like Cotton are either too lazy or incapable of writing these op/eds. Assume someone in the admin handed it to him. Cotton himself may not have seen it before it was published.
3 Likes
The NYT once again steps in a pile of Baquet of it’s own making. Their ability to lend voice to “both sides” at every critical juncture in this country’s recent history is endless. Sure they have some decent journalists there, but that doesn’t excuse their carrying the water of every governmental cretin that wants his voice published.
It’s worth cancelling your sub if you bother to have one, maybe when Baquet is gone sub again but until then fuck the fucking new york times.
6 Likes
And if the reason for publishing is that Cotton’s idea needs to be scrutinized and debated, why did they run it with the comments section disabled? They’re elevating a punch-the-hippies piece, while handcuffing the hippies.
9 Likes
Just an outstanding post. Bravo, my friend. All of it’s excellent, especially the Powers That Be making it into just another “News Cycle” story.
Trump and his Team being able to use a mouth, a mike and a message through “communication” is right up the alley of these fuckers. My last point is two words:
Les Moonves.
2 Likes
1 September, 1939
Why we had to send troops into Poland
byline, Joseph Goebbels
7 Likes
I understand the exhortations to support newspapers. The value of the NYT’s journalism – Maggie Habeman excepted – is incredible. But I will continue to steal their valuable reporting so long as their editorial overlords continue to smother it in Both Sides bullshit.
4 Likes
They are about, checking the math, 95 years too late. The NY Tiimes always has normalized fascism. That’s why no American politician or commentator is ever called a fascist. They will ID an avowed Nazi, a Nazi, but will note they are an OK neighbor.
Listen, since fascism is very mainline in America it stands to reason that a Liberal voice will give fascists a fair hearing. That’s what Liberalism stands for.
.
1 Like
It’s why first degree murder must also be put to the jury.
They actually opened a comments section later. Lots of “honorable senator, I disagree with you,” or “Sir, while I respect your right to speak, I must register my civil objection.” I commented, “This is hateful agit-prop.” The Times declined to post it in the comments section.
4 Likes
I’ll preface this by saying I agree that the NYT screwed up by printing the Cotton op-ed, because it crosses the line into implied threats of harm to law-abiding citizens.
But “the NYT has always deferred to the powerful?” C’mon now. They screw up now and then, but the reporting is mostly neutral. When it does have an apparent political tint, it’s usually to the left. Fox News would not be using the following article headlines on today’s front page of the web site:
- Arbery Murder Suspect Used Racist Slur After Killing, Hearing Is Told
- New York Updates: Protesters Defy Curfew, and Police Don’t Wait Long to Enforce It
- A friend of George Floyd, who was in the car during the fatal encounter, said Mr. Floyd did not resist arrest.
- Today’s Activism: Spontaneous, Leaderless, but Not Without Aim
- Another man who called out “I can’t breathe” died in police custody in March. An autopsy ruled it a homicide.
- Trump Tests a Role He’s Long Admired: A Strongman Imposing Order
- Mattis Accuses Trump of Dividing the Nation in a Time of Crisis
- Defense Secretary Mark Esper said that military troops should not be sent to control protests, at least for now.
Note that the “Trump tests a strongman role” is not an approving article. Far from it. It’s a good analysis and deconstruction of Trump’s love of dictators.
I have a NYT subscription, more for the cultural articles than as a news source, but if I thought it was turning into a Trump-supporting rag, I’d cancel in a heartbeat. They screw up here and there, and publishing Cotton was a big one. But it’s not that bad otherwise. Trump wouldn’t be constantly railing against the NYT if they weren’t doing a good job of reporting the failures of his administration.
2 Likes
Only if you’re a Republican member of congress. Tom Cotton’s screed only got published because he’s a senator. If one of their regular columnists submitted that same text, it never would have seen the light of day. But BothSidesism requires publication of any goddamned insane thing a Republican might spew.
3 Likes
Most people outside of the Bible Belt already knew Cotton to be a POS.
3 Likes
They’ve been doing this shit going back to Bill Clinton, Gore, Kerry and Hilary. With Trump they’ve been treading lightly.
6 Likes
They could at least have permitted comments. It would have been torn to shreds in a matter of minutes.
1 Like
That should have been the NYT headline, not the faux-patriotic “Send in the Troops.”
3 Likes
That’s why I finally cancelled my subscription back in '08.
1 Like
Fox News? That’s a pretty low bar for “fair” reporting. Among the major newspaper, teevie and cable presences, they’re nearly as rightwing as you can get. Even the Albuquerque Journal looks leftist by comparison. And that’s saying a lot.
Full disclosure: I subscribe to the NYT online edition, and will NOT be dropping coverage, either. Not yet.
4 Likes
FWIW, I used the Fox News comparison because I was writing a response to the claim that “The NYT has always deferred to the powerful. They’ve made every effort to normalize the Republican president’s lunatic ravings.” Which sure sounds like Fox to me. Especially that last part.
2 Likes
The Times has every reason to write a news article about Cotton’s views and the existence of the Insurrection Act and how it has been used in the past. They can quote Cotton, and they can quote those who oppose the use of force or those who have a better perspective on how out of control (or not) things are, compared with say 1968. That would be balance and even-handedness. And it would necessarily require some editorial decisions. What the Times constantly tries to do is to pretend there is no relationship between the newsroom and the editorial board, but this is not borne out in fact. What they choose to publish implicates their perspective, whether they acknowledge it or not, and it is news, whether they acknowledge it or not. Cotton’s views do not represent a “side,” they represent an extreme, even though they may partly reflect the views of the president.
3 Likes
I’m glad to see you’re reminding folks in scrupulous detail in the face of hysterical “NYT very, very bad fascists!” and to folks who’ll just blow off any defense of their 168-year long journalism. trumPP does indeed rail and we know why.
Good on you for posting what’s needed to be said, and saying to some people who are saying they’ll continue not to read it because of decades old grievances so they clearly prefer darkness. But for the record, I saw the column, skimmed it, and knew instantly it would draw ire here. So, about 1,000 likes for stepping up because you know out front you won’t change minds and hearts. There’s a reason NYT received three Pulitzer prizes in journalism, and no reporting on this website publication has.