We have a Pit thread that’s been going on for a while over the NYT’s publication of an op-ed by senator Tom Cotton - don’t want to derail it, so here is a separate thread:
AIUI, the purpose of an op-ed section is to air a wide variety of viewpoints across a political spectrum. This doesn’t mean that the media outlet has to agree with any of the views, of course - the NYT once published an op-ed by a Taliban leader, after all - nor does it mean that a media outlet is obligated to publish everything (they must be drowning in hundreds of op-ed pitches all day long and couldn’t run them all even if they wanted to.)
But - many people objected to Cotton’s op-ed being run in the NYT on the grounds of…“Cotton is a bad person and he is advocating for something bad.” Okay, sure, but…isn’t that what an op-ed section does, to air all sorts of viewpoints? After all, Sirajuddin Haqqani, the Taliban terrorist leader who wrote the aforementioned op-ed to the NYT, is hardly a shining example of good character or ideals either. Are the critics arguing that the NYT should only run op-eds that most NYT readers would agree with?
I was glad to read, for instance, the Cotton op-Ed. I don’t need to read more of what I agree with. I do need to read most of everything I don’t or wouldn’t agree worth.
So I know exactly what to be afraid of and to be prepared to work against.
I agree that publishing op-eds from the entire political spectrum is a good idea, but this should be subject to caveats:
All assertions of fact should be verified and, if necessary, cited. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They are not entitled to their own facts.
An op-ed containing or constituting hate speech should not be published
The op-ed should be original and any source material should be given as a quote and with attribution
Op-eds should be held to a certain standard of coherence. Incoherent ramblings should not be published.
But if you start excluding op-eds over differential interpretations of what constitutes “fact”, you might as well not run them at all.
There are viable alternatives - running an opposing viewpoint that refutes claims made in the original op-ed, and publishing letters to the editor that accomplish the same thing. I see this done all the time. Spotlighting the fact that someone is playing fast and loose with reality can have a salutary effect, as opposed to refusing them a platform altogether.
The definition may not be totally objective, but I’m willing to let the paper apply an “I know it when I see it” standard to keep out anything that most reasonable people would agree is hate speech.