No, they aren’t. Publishing it drags political discourse in that direction by normalizing such beliefs and portraying them as something that deserve to be taken seriously. It immediately means that the people who want to argue against it are at a disadvantage before they even start, and they likely won’t even be heard, anyway.
The Republicans have been using that tactic to drag the US to the Right for decades.
Oh, they are; that’s* why* they published this. They’ve been pandering and propagandizing for the Republicans for a long time. They just also like to pretend to be neutral.
Like it or not, Cotton’s opinion is a popular one, shared by literally tens of millions of Americans. It’s already normal. And it deserves to be taken seriously if for no better reason than to better prepare people to argue against it. And the Times has already published numerous rebuttals on the very same Op-Ed page. Cotton was ‘heard’, so I guess they will be as well.
Well, tough. Arguing against it is the only thing you can do. Pretending people don’t hold this opinion doesn’t do anything, except guarantee you’ll be surprised when you lose.
The numbers don’t lie. 58% of registered voters support calling in the U.S. military to supplement city policy forces dealing with the protests. Now, because of Tom Cotton’s article, I know why. That’s valuable. Thanks, New York Times!
If a GOP Senator smears his own shit into “Trump = God”, the NYT isn’t obliged to publish that as an Op-Ed. This bullshit from Cotton was only a few steps up from that. They should have sent it back with red-ink all over, indicating where he’s making false assumptions, where he’s misstated facts, and where his arguments make no sense, and asked him to try again.
The NYT isn’t obliged to publish any bullshit written by a prominent Republican. They should demand good arguments based on facts. This goes for any editorial they publish.
The problem is that, right now, so many prominent Republicans are demanding that their false understanding of reality – the inaccurate assumptions they rely on for so many of their positions – be treated as just as legitimate and worthy of discussion as actual decent arguments based on accurate facts. And that’s where the media is going wrong these days – they’re treating this bullshit as equivalent to liberal/progressive advocacy. They should call it out – when the President lies, and when his cronies lie.
There can be smart and reasonable conservative advocacy, but this Op-Ed wasn’t it. It was lies and bullshit. The NYT isn’t obligated to publish lies and bullshit.
In the file Margin Call, the Jeremy Irons character says “Explain it me as you would to your Doberman Pinscher. It wasn’t my brains that got me this job.”
The Irons character was a top Wall St. CEO. To explain something to a typical undecided American voter, pretend you’re addressing a banana slug, or a toadstool. If they can think as far as “Must be good, read it in the libtard Times” they’re smarter than most.
Publicizing every right-wing whine or lie forces the real humans to spend their time playing whack-a-mole. (By the way, I’ve no idea what Cottonism we’re debating here beyond the 9-word summary in OP: spending a minute reading anything a Gopster has to say is a minute wasted from my life.)
The GOP has sunk so low, that what sounds like sarcasm is just factual. The Onion could fire its writers and just report what Gopsters say.
Thank you! I learned something new. (I thought Op-Ed was short for ‘Opinions and Editorials.’)
I’m someone on the political left and would be to left of Bernie Sanders on many issues but I value clarity over political posturing, so get the facts straight.
I’ve read the article. I think calling in the military is a terrible idea, but *nowhere *in that article did he suggest using it against the protesters. He very specifically targeted his comments at the looters and the rioters.
The article was published as an opinion piece in the NYT. It did not go unchallenged. I don’t know if it was also published on right wing outlets like Breitbart or whether Cotton did an interview on Fox News or right wing radio. We can be fairly certain it would go entirely unchallenged in right wing media.
Seems to me, it received the criticism it rightly deserved by being published by NYT. By receiving such criticism, it might convince an independent thinker to agree with the more progressive point of view. It stand far less of a chance to convince that same independent thinker if the story was relegated to right wing media and faced no critical analysis whatsoever.
I subscribe to the view, ‘…And we shall know them by their limping’. It’s my thinking that short of speech that incites hate and violence or is linked to organizations or philosophies that incite hate and violence, speech, even if it’s wrong, needs to be exposed to the light of day and be critically evaluated, even criticized and ridiculed. Relegated to the shadows, those who support it will almost certainly never face opposition or hear critical argument.
Maybe. But I don’t think that’s enough justification to publish any random garbage produced by a US Senator. And I’m unconvinced this was better than random garbage, as far as an Op-Ed goes.
No. It is precisely why it should be published if so submitted. It’s not the job of the NYT or the left to vet or otherwise improve a bad right-wing argument published as an Op-Ed. A bad argument should be seen publicly to fail of it’s own merit. To send Cotton home to re-write his submission would only allow him to save face and submit it to a more friendly audience.
So a shit-smeared napkin of “Trump = God” would be accepted? I don’t think so.
The difference here is where we draw the line. Maybe your line is right above the napkin, but anything else goes. My line is a bit higher (but not much) – and Cotton’s garbage op-ed doesn’t meet it.
No, it is the job of the newspaper and its editors to vet what is published (though it’s not their job to improve one’s arguments). In the printed paper, there may only be room for three or four OpEd pieces, although more can be published online. So it’s up to the editors to select only the best-written pieces. (I can almost guarantee that they receive far more submissions than they are able to publish.)
Yes. With gloves on, held arms length and nose pinched.
Because “Trump=God” is absurd on face value and embarrasses the author and like minded thinkers far more than it stands a chance to convince anyone of it’s validity. Especially because it will not go unchallenged. Telling Cotton to tone it down only trains him to sharpen his rhetoric to make it more generally appealing. If he wants to show his ass in public - fucking let him.
If/when Cotton runs for public office again, this article will be among the best exhibits of why he does not deserve re-election. If the NYT works to save him from himself, some people won’t know how big of an asshole he really is.
That’s one of my problems with this article: it’s clear that the usually high standards of the Times were not adhered to.
For the record, I’ve had other problems with the Times in recent years. As an example, I did not, nor do I now, endorse the anonymous, mysterious “letter” or essay to the Times. I think I was on record as saying that back then.
In a former life, I was in PR with a background in journalism and communications. I learned to respect a quality investigative reporter and a publication dedicated to getting the story right, even when they exposed aspects of the organization and industry that were perhaps dark secrets at the time. Quality reporting makes everyone better.
But not this shit. It’s click bait, plain and simple. And it’s a pathetic form of appeasement to right wing trolls and hacks who contend that the professional press is persecuting the right wing simply on ideological grounds.
In case people don’t already get it, Tom Cotton is a conspiracy theorist. He does not need a platform - certainly not one with the Times’ reputation. If he is discussing a matter of policy (i.e. immigration or stimulus funding), that’s one thing. Instead he’s taking an opportunity to amplify Trump’s authoritarianism.
At a time when the entire Republican party has aided and abetted the destruction of political and constitutional norms - something the Times is fully aware of - they should not be aiding and abetting authoritarianism by giving them a platform. In fact, authoritarians from Hitler’s Nazis to Hugo Chavez’s socialists have used “free press” platforms to persuade the masses of people to concede ground and ultimately give up their democracies and liberties. Consistent with Jeffersonian principle, we depend on a free press to expose untruth, not to cooperate with those who have a pattern of propagating falsity.
And just as many people might find comfort in what he’s saying and be even more convinced to brave coronavirus and vote for him. Don’t make the mistake of assuming that voters are rational, moral, or share the same values that we do. Contrary to what we believe, being a free press does in fact require credible publications and news outlets to be filters – yes, filters. I absolutely reject the notion that the news should be a forum for the absurd or that it should entertain all points of view no matter the source; it should educate people.
As I said, the NY Times and mainstream media not need host the likes of conspiracy theorists like Cotton to spread filth. They have Breitbart, OANN, and Fox News. By refusing to publish propaganda, the Times isn’t depriving Cotton (or Alex Jones for that matter) of the right to speak; they’re instead upholding the standards of reporting that their readers expect, and in doing that, they’re also giving other readers, who are either indifferent or skeptical, an alternative to alternative facts.
Publishing nutty op-eds and anonymous grievances from people whose motivations are not clear and transparent is self-destructive, and it ultimately deprives the rest of us of a reliable source of information.
