NYT reporters are spilling the tea all over Twitter.
He didn’t read it.
https://twitter.com/marcatracy/status/1268667488356704256?s=21
1 Like
I read on the Internet the cop named Chauvin committed suicide in his cell. Twitter and the Internet are where lies go to take hold as truth. But you stay on the case and when Bennett fesses up, get back to me.
This is admirable and should demonstrate that they’re able to acknowledge mistakes and correct the process overall. It won’t satisfy anyone who’s braying about them being decapitated or shut down or whatever and will continue to call them dishonest. And if Cotton’s piece is retracted even better.
1 Like
Only because they were taken to task by their own staff, which is encouraging!
But there are procedures Op-Eds go through. That mea culpa was the editorial equivalent of “we didn’t read it.” That isn’t how your or my or anyone else’s writing would be treated. That’s institutional deference to power.
Thank goodness for the staff that held the institution to a higher standard.
3 Likes
I read those stories online. And they have also deferred to power. Publishing this Cotton piece is a perfect example. It’s a piece of WH propaganda. And they inexcusably dumped on Dem presidential candidates like Gore, Kerry and Hillary.
2 Likes
So, we’ve sparred about this for years. Are you an heir to the fortune? I actually think the Wall Street Journal is a better overall paper and I hate to say that given the owner.
Is this supposed to excuse their treatment of these other Dem candidates and their support of Bush in his bullshit excuse to attack Iraq?
2 Likes
It’s true. They supported Bush, not the Clinton’s, the Gore’s and every other major democratic force, so what’s up with that? Both big D and small d.
I thought it was obvious. I get a commission everytime I post something in cyberspace that boosts their rep. I also get commissions from WaPo and LA Times for simply checking their websites.
@gr No, of course not, but the editorial side does things differently than the reporting side, and since nobody seems to have read the paper since 2008 it’s still a secret.
We’re all readers. We all recognize that some great reporting comes out of the Times.
That’s why we worry and criticize.
4 Likes
I’ve been reading more about the NYT process re-Cotton’s op-ed, and am revising my previous willingness to believe that what the NYT ultimately did was acceptable.
The times publishes “questionable” op eds all the time (Marc Thiessen anyone??), and I personally am not easily swayed by anyone’s “opinion” or “editorial”. I don’t expect a newspaper to do thorough fact checking the way I do for their reporting (but maybe I should have higher expectations). I consider op eds “educational” in that they give a glimpse of that person’s or entity’s agenda, priorities, values—I find that very useful. In this case, the senator got his message across loud and clear. That the NYT amplified Cotton’s message and validated it to some extent by publishing it, and that they’re now getting a lot of grief for it, is justified IMO. It does call their standards into question, as it should. And if the bar for non public servants is relatively low (again, Thiessen), then it should be higher for our representatives in government.
Here’s a link that details the back and forth between the Times and Cotton/staff - and the source (again, IMO) seems to try to absolve Cotton and focus the entire issue solely on the Times’ process, rather than on the disturbing and dangerous message of Cotton’s op-ed. Nevertheless, it was helpful to me in reshaping my views of this particular situation. So there ya go!
1 Like
You could try writing an submitting it.
1 Like
And when the NYT publishes an op-ed from “a recognized public figure who holds or held public office,” like, say, Pat Buchanan wherein he denies the holocaust ever happened, and Bennet later explains it was to “engender scrutiny and debate,” I suppose you’ll be snarkily criticizing the people who denounce it.
Concern trolling much?
1 Like
I’m sure Kim Jong Un is as physically cowardly as Trump, who got 5 Vietnam deferments, is. But that is irrelevant as to whether they would order someone else to do the killing, particularly if their own necks were at stake.
Prudence requires at least being conscious of the worst-case scenario, so as to be in a position to prevent it. The statements of Mattis, Allen, Kelly, and Mullen have been very heartening that not every military officer is prepared to see the military transformed into a lethal prop for Trump’s reelection. But again, prudence would require that the aforementioned gentlemen increase their number and begin having serious conversations with their active duty colleagues to forestall Trump using the military as an instrument for a coup.
1 Like
Endorsements are the equivalent of fine-print terms of service on software. What counted was that the NYT helped sink Hillary’s election with an October 31, 2016 piece that claimed the FBI had absolved the Trump campaign of any involvement with the Russians. The piece was false from beginning to end (probably disinformation planted by either Rudy Giuliani or Joe diGenova, both very close to the NYC FBI field office, which had loads of anti-Clinton malcontents). The alleged “great reporting,” was by David Sanger, who, based on my one experience with him, is a rather obnoxious asshole.
4 Likes
I don’t have “speech and debate” immunity or a lawyer on retainer.
My opinion is unchanged. Information, by itself, is not bad. It’s when the information isn’t put in a proper context, or understood properly, that it causes problems. The NYT relying on the American public to understand information in a context that’s larger than their own mouth-breathing experience, which is generally poorly informed and racist, is always a mistake. Lol, you can’t tell someone they’re a lamb their whole life and then expect them to have critical thinking. You really can’t expect that when the median IQ is 100 and they’ve been emotionally and intellectually manipulated their whole lives.
But I will never accept that information, by itself, is evil or bad. It’s how the information is used that determines whether an action is good or bad. And because the NYT didn’t responsibly provide enough information for the low-IQ American public to have the tools necessary to struggle through this idea that fascism is bad, based on plenty of history of how those ideas have been used in the past and by whom, they screwed up.
2 Likes