I'm not saying I agree with his stance. I am saying that the entire thing from it appearing to the resignation because people upset over is a problem. I cannot fathom that the Time did not go through the entire editorial process they do with everyone else and then decided to run the piece. We MUST allow other opinions to be put out in the open, regardless of our personal feelings towards it.
the whole point of the opinion section is that the writers not liking it doesn't matter. it's disgusting. no conflicting views allowed apparently.
There is a line, though, right? I remember an opinion piece by a Taliban official, perhaps a North Korean, I can't remember specifically, which garnered outrage, too?
it was hardly an article by the grand wizard of the KKK. certainly not something the guy should be losing his job over
He wasn't fired, though. He resigned. People being upset he okayed an opinion piece pushing for the armed takeover of the streets of America is rightly, one the other writers and people should be pissed about. Can we also note the editor didn't even read the piece by Cotton before publishing it? Certainly this is something which, itself, could be grounds for dismissal as an editor of a major international newspaper?
Imagine having to explain why the CCP is bad but conservatism A sitting senator doesn't need to have an editorial platform. The guy who stepped down admitted he didn't read it before it ran. Some of the statements made as fact by Cotton are directly contradicted by NYT reporting. In a time when journalists are quite literally being maimed and NOT by protesters, it is understandable that they would feel betrayed by this running.
Cotton himself brought up one that was along the lines of "pedophilia is a disorder to be treated and not a crime." So even he believes there is a line somewhere. I think where the controversy lays is that there are factual errors being propped up in that opinion, which is where the "editorial standards" talk comes in. Opinions are going to differ and be debated. Facts may be disputed. But you can't just argue an opinion with manufactured "facts" you haven't even attempted to establish, and call that any kind of standard. That's a [uck fay]ing message board.
i don't see a lot of difference between being fired. why? it's an opinion piece. it's not fact. there are all sorts of wacky opinion pieces in the ny times everyday
I don't think you'll find me backing the military involvement in cities. I don't think the looting and rioting should be allowed at all, but I would hope with all the domestic law enforcement already paid for by tax payers that would be enough to protect tax payer property. I also don't like how protestors get wrapped up by the looters and rioters on both sides.
We allowed them to shut down free speech on campuses for how long now? Did we really think this was going to stay on college campuses.
How is an uprising in the news and opinion rooms over an opinion piece ran qualifying as editorial control?
The NYT should be free to have that editorial control they want. But this cancel culture and shooting anyone down with an opinion you don't agree as fascism or racist isn't healthy. Just look at what it has done to comedy. There's quite a few that think Dave Chappell might have saved comedy with his last special standing up and saying the things most are afraid too. That will not lead to a peaceful society and will go to dark places.
What uprising? People complained, sure, but he resigned and other was reassigned by management who weren't happy. That's not due to an uprising. The guy said he didn't even read it before running it.
He resigned because NYT staffers didn’t like what Cotton said - and not purely for factual in/accuracy - and they were mad that he allowed him to say it. It’s always liberals who don’t want people to be able to say what they want. They’ll be out of business soon, and these same staffers will blame it on racism, I’m sure.
