John Nacion/STAR MAX/IPx
The Times faced off with its own staffers after publishing a call for use of U.S. military forces to quell protests.
Unless you have been sheltering in place on Jupiter, you are aware that The New York Times is in turmoil over its decision to publish an op-ed piece by Sen. Tom Cotton. The op-ed, “Send In the Troops,” called for a military occupation of America’s cities, and grossly misrepresented the nature of the demonstrations in the wake of the police lynching of George Floyd.
Much of the paper’s African American staff bravely went public with their outrage. Several made the point that Cotton’s demands, if carried out, would put their lives at risk.
Editorial page editor James Bennet responded with a half-hearted piece of his own, defending the decision but later admitting that he hadn’t read the op-ed before it was published. The paper then published a “mistakes were made” semi-apology, promising to review procedures.
In the meantime, some civil libertarians defended the Times decision to publish a range of views, while others objected that the paper was gratuitously giving a platform to neofascism. (Everyone has a right to free speech, but not in The New York Times.) But one lapse screams out and resolves that argument:
The Cotton piece contained outright lies, distortions, and misrepresentations. The Times would not publish op-ed pieces claiming that the Holocaust never happened or that vaccines cause autism. So why did they give this pack of lies a pass?
It turns out that the Times op-ed department solicited this piece, almost as a way of publishing Trump’s inflammatory lies without the indignity of publishing Trump himself.
The Times is kind enough to publish one or two op-eds of mine every year, and they are always subjected to fact-check. Cotton’s piece obviously wasn’t, or several lies would have been deleted. The op-ed department, having invited the piece (from a U.S. senator no less) was too abashed to subject it to ordinary editorial scrutiny. The op-ed staffer who handled the piece, it also came out, was Adam Rubenstein, formerly of the now defunct right-wing magazine The Weekly Standard.
I’ve contacted several friends and colleagues who’ve appeared on the Times op-ed page, and they always get fact-checked, too. So in addition to grotesque misjudgment, the Times was guilty of a gross double standard.
Ironically, the Times editorial page has gotten more and more progressive and brave, when it comes to Trump’s excesses and the shame of racism. The paper has hired some terrific progressive columnists, including Prospect alum Jamelle Bouie. But as good as the Times has been, this decision reveals a terrible blind spot.
Indeed, hundreds of journalists at the Times have now put their own jobs on the line. The Times can’t fire them all, and dare not fire one. Yesterday, the Times executive editor, Dean Baquet, who is African American, said he was proud of the solidarity that the staff had exhibited.
The movement for black lives has occupied the Times.
