Forums

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Right. I know how incensed you get about boring things.

If you were talking to someone incensed about it, it wasn't me. I continue to think that it's more interesting to talk about the challenges of editing the NYT. Pretty much everyone thinks the Cotton op-ed was bad, and an argument about what was worse about it is pretty dull.

So you cited the reaction of black reporters to Cotton's story why then? They were bored too?

IIRC, you suggest that there was nothing unusual about the Cotton flap, and I said it was unusual for the NYT to generate so much internal criticism that became public.

You answered that question yourself (your words):

"We all agree that there are some ideas that are beyond the pale, that there's a line to be drawn. There's nothing objective about those lines.

But I don't think he's saying Cotton's ideas shouldn't be debated. I think he's saying that we need more honesty about what Cotton's ideas are."

Cotton was pretty clear about what his ideas were.

But not honest. The lies about antifa, for example.

If your argument is that Cotton is a propagandist but an important one, and the NYT's readership should get exposed to his propaganda, that's a strong argument for giving him more coverage in the news section, in articles that chronicle his propaganda.

In either case, it was clearly an approximation of your argument that certain things are beyond the pale.

Do you understand the difference between "are" and "should be"? My point was, the NYT has *always* treated certain things as beyond the pale. I'm just telling you that they have always drawn a line. You're getting all hot and bothered by the idea that they do not invite some ideas on to their little op-ed page, but that is what they have always done.

This has it backwards. The OpEd page is not journalism. It is exactly the place where people should consider Cotton's opinion and decide whether it's wise or not.

Why do you think journalism is *not* about informing people about Cotton's opinions and helping them decide whether it's wise or not? Isn't that exactly why we have journalists?

I don't think this was a situation similar to your prep school friend hypothetical.

It was actually very similar, in that Cotton went to Harvard and is a friend of Bill Kristol, which opens lots of doors for him, and he got the piece in the NYT because he was contacted by someone who had been at the Weekly Standard.

Cotton's was a view that is in fact supported by a lot of people. Could it have been better drafted? Yes. But I think the most significant thing to come out of it was the debate about how much of the country actually supports using troops to control protests. There was a lot of argument about whether 58% was accurate. Whatever the number is, it is significant. That's a window into the "silent majority" in the country.

Suppose a significant part of the country supports police brutality but doesn't want to call it police brutality -- let's say they talk about "law and order," and make up stuff about antifa and looters, and ignore legit grievances, and tell lurid stories about blacks committing crimes against whites, and so on. Let's just pretend that 33% of the country feels that way. You're the editor of the NYT. You think to yourself, 'wow, a big part of the country supports this 'law & order' stuff -- I should make sure that their views are understood by my effete, latte-sipping, Volvo-driving readership.' Do you run op-eds calling for law and order and let the writers make up stuff about antifa and looters and ignore legitimate grievances? Or do you run something else instead?

Or suppose that the country is gripped by a pandemic, and health officials say that it would save lives and slow the cost and spread of the disease for everyone to wear masks. But 33% of the country has decided that masks infringe their personal freedoms, because Trump. Do you run op-eds calling for people to burn their masks to save our liberties?

Or suppose that we have a climate crisis, and the solid consensus of experts is that the climate is changing. 33% of the country does not want to hear it, and would rather hear advertisements for pick-up trucks. Do you run op-eds that cherry-pick evidence to downplay the climate crisis and tell people that they should drive trucks if they want to?

I personally think the NYT op-ed page should aspire to something more than you seem to. If I were its editor, I would not run a piece if I thought it were not dealing with hard questions in an intellectually serious way. There are plenty of people who want to do that -- it wouldn't be hard to find them. Where the NYT went wrong, IMO, is not because of the substance of Cotton's views. It's because they went to him and asked to write a piece because he went to Harvard, he's a Senator, he's an up-and-coming conservative who is talked about as a 2024 candidate, he knows Bill Kristoll, or some combination of those things, and then did not hold his piece to any intellectual standards, or -- in the case of Bennet -- even read it. The post hoc rationalization that Cotton speaks for a lot of people is beside the point. A lot of people like Twinkies. The New York Times doesn't run Twinkie commercials on its op-ed pages.

You know my beliefs:

1. Fiscally, moderate;
2. Socially liberal

Free speech? Absolutist
Pro-choice
Favoring negative rights as opposed to positive ones? Yup.
Health care? In favor of a single payer system
UBI? In favor of it out of necessity
Pro-immigration
Regulation? In favor of smart, minimal forms, and elimination of most of the useless forms we have.
Gay marriage? Pro
Size of govt? Obscenely oversized
Defense? Cut the budget in half
Foreign policy? Moderate
Justice reform? Vehemently pro
Taxes? Spent well, I'm fine with an increase; spent inefficiently as they are, no.



If I were inside the Times, I would run pieces focusing on how the masses are being divided and conquered. I'd offend my advertisers and allow more voices advising the poor of all races and backgrounds to unite. To not buy into the marketing that divides them, and instead get together and topple the people with the money by using their combined votes. I'd focus on class. I'd focus on nepotism in the system. I'd allow voices that explained the propaganda. I'd allow voices who'd tell them we are a kleptocracy of a sort, but not because of Trump. Because we've allowed corporations to take over the government. I'd allow voices who'd explain that there is little difference between the parties, which all serve the same special interests.

People would believe in almost no institutions if I had that page.

That's delightful. What if you were hired to run the op-ed page, and told not to favor your own views?