NYT says Tom Cotton editorial 'did not meet our standards'

[TomCADem]

Source: The Hill

The New York Times said on Thursday the controversial op-ed written by Republican Sen. Tom Cotton (Ark.) "did not meet our standards."

The Times published the column, titled "Tom Cotton: Send In the Troops" on Wednesday, where he argued that the president should invoke the Insurrection Act to quell protests that have sparked up across the country in light of the death of George Floyd, an unarmed black man who died in Minneapolis police custody last week.

"We've examined the piece and the process leading up to its publication," a Times spokesperson told The Hill in a statement. "This review made clear that a rushed editorial process led to the publication of an Op-Ed that did not meet our standards.

* * *
The op-ed included factual errors that the Times has reported on, such as the claim that antifa, which is not a formal organization, is "infiltrating protest marches to exploit Floyd's death for their own anarchic purposes."

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/nyt-says-tom-cotton-editorial-did-not-meet-our-standards/ar-BB153cun?li=BBnb7Kz

---

It is nice that the NY Times now admits that it was wrong, but this just confirms that the NY Times repeatedly fails by engaging in false equivalency.

In an effort to try to be "objective," the NY Times resorts to a cable news like approach of allowing the extreme right free reign to make shit up in order to create a false equivalency. If you are going to allow Tom Cotton, a right wing zealot, advocate using troops against peaceful protesters, you might as well give David Dukes, Alex Jones or Kellyanne Conway a column.

[dawg day]

1. Why is it there's no recognition BEFORE publication?

You're right-- they try very hard to be what they consider "objective", which means having "pro-Trump."

No one can be pro-Trump and be objective in the sense of presenting and explaining evidence.

[Politicub]

19. The page editor gave a cowardly, pitiful excuse.

He said he didn’t read it before publication. What’s the point of being an editor if you’re not aware of what gets published?

[sfstaxprep]

2. Fuck Off, You Rag

Are you going to rescind all your BS from the Iraq War too?

So glad you're on our side.

[OAITW r.2.0]

3. So why did you publish it? Fire the Editor if he can't stand up to fascism.

That's Cotten's message. A confederate nazi? Maybe.

[ibegurpard]

4. Barring the doors after the horses have left the barn

How about some accountability and commitment to do better?

[Cha]

5. So, Did the Cancellations Get to the NYT or WHAT?

"We've examined the piece and the process leading up to its publication," a Times spokesperson told The Hill in a statement. "This review made clear that a rushed editorial process led to the publication of an Op-Ed that did not meet our standards.

[not fooled]

6. Here's an insightful take

by Jack Holmes of Esquire (which also publishes the great Charlie Pierce):

[link:https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a32767317/tom-cotton-op-ed-authoritarian-rhetoric/|]

But there was also another argument in play, and it betrayed an attitude towards the rhetoric of authoritarianism that is dangerously naive. It's a variant of the "sunlight is the best disinfectant" argument, and it holds that fascist rhetoric like this should be widely and loudly trumpeted so that it can be dismantled using Facts and Logic. Throw it into the "marketplace of ideas," where its value will swiftly plummet. But this represents a comprehensive failure to grapple with the nature of fascism, which is not bound by concerns about what is true or even what was said five minutes ago. It cannot be defeated by Reason. It continually shape-shifts and changes form, rejecting previous bedrock principles in favor of their opposites whenever it is convenient. It is necessarily absurd, because it is just an elaborate costume for a very simple message: "Obey, or I will hurt you."

Jean-Paul Sartre illustrated this in 1946, a time when the world had become well acquainted with the form.

Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

The bad-faith absurdity of these arguments is clear if you allow yourself to stop taking them at face value for a moment. In the case of Cotton's op-ed, he argues for military intervention to crush antiracist protests in part on the basis that the military has previously intervened domestically to enforce antiracist policies—namely, school integration. This is a farce. It is something beyond offensive or illogical. It is an assault on the mind, a twisting of first principles for degenerate ends.

Meanwhile, some insist his speech must be published in the nation's largest and most prestigious newspaper, even if it expressly advocates for the violent suppression of speech. And then, when legions of New York Times staffers spoke out to denounce the op-ed, their exercise of their free-speech rights to criticize the decision to publish was decried as "censorious" and even "a coup." What, dude? Apparently, one opinion must be blasted out to the world, even if it relies on blatant false claims in its basic premise, because it comes from a United States senator. Other opinions about how that opinion is shitty and should not be blasted out are assaults on free speech. Will the Times publish my op-ed titled, "Tom Cotton Is Fashy Big Bird"? Subject it to the Marketplace of Ideas! Or would the editors make the decision, as is their right and their duty, that the argument is based on false premises, or outside the bounds of acceptable discourse on their platform?

[scarletwoman]

10. Excellent piece of writing! Thank you for finding it and posting it! (nt)

[KY_EnviroGuy]

11. Thank you for posting. This line describes every Rethug I've ever known.....

They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

KY..........

[c-rational]

18. Great Post - Thank You.

[comradebillyboy]

7. There are a remarkable number of complete

assholes at the NYT.

[dalton99a]

15. The New York Times is not on our side, and never was.

Their allegiance is to Wall Street and the oligarchy

[BigmanPigman]

8. After seeing how they focused on negative stories about Hillary in 2016

I have written them off. The Wa Post is better in my opinion.

[KY_EnviroGuy]

12. K&R. Agree with what you said, TomCADem. Spot on!

The far right-wing already has the bully pulpit, their own cable news channel and hundreds of talk radio stations and yet still manage to get our mainstream media to participate in careless both-siderism.

That would be the power of money in the U.S.A. and nothing more.

Our newspaper of record resides far too close to Wall Street in New York City.

KY...........

[Maxheader]

13. Well I don't really understand the times position..

Maybe if they had said.."the guy is a rabid winger drama queen.."..

[oasis]

14. "Factual errors" by ultra right nutcase. Who knew? nt

[dalton99a]

16. But it's important to give them a megaphone

One must be fair and balanced

[SWBTATTReg]

20. Love it! How utterly true. I always tell my friends to look out the damn window for the weather...

forecast.

[Mz Pip]

17. The comments were better thought out

I hope Cotton read them.