I do not like Sen tom cotton rf* AR, I think he would feel right at home in the prc, Russia, Hungary, Cuba, Venezuela, Brazil, he would have been comfortable in the third reich, he would be right at home in any country that is authoritarian and denies it's citizens their universal human rights. Lucky for him he is an American citizen and so has the right to express his ignorance as long as it does not promote violence. I am really disappointed in the reaction of the NY Times staff to their employer's decision to publish Sen cotton's op-ed. We should want to know the fascist opposition's positions and plans so we know what we have to work to prevent rather than be caught unaware. Remember, hitler published mein kampf well before becoming der furher, people just did not pay attention until it was too late. We need to celebrate, defend and protect the free press (NOT MY) pres drumpf / trump and the gop / greed over people / republican party condemns, doing so will keep us free. From CNN and the New York Times.....
* republican fascist
New York Times staffers revolt over publication of Tom Cotton op-ed
New York (CNN Business)Staffers at The New York Times expressed dismay Wednesday over the newspaper's decision to publish an op-ed written by Republican Sen. Tom Cotton that called for the U.S. military to be deployed in cities across the country to help restore order.
The op-ed was published in The Times opinion section, but staffers from both opinion and the newsroom — which operate separate from one another — publicly dissented.
A parade of Times journalists tweeted a screen shot showing the headline of Cotton's piece, "Send In the Troops," with the accompanying words: "Running this puts Black @NYTimes staff in danger."
New York Times Magazine staff writers Jenna Wortham and Taffy Brodesser-Akner and the paper's senior editor Kwame Opam were among the journalists who did that. National political reporter Astead W. Herndon tweeted his support for his "colleagues, and particularly the black ones."
A spokesperson for The Times did not immediately reply to a request for comment.
5,062 people are talking about this
Supporting my colleagues, and particularly the black ones. if electeds want to make provocative arguments let them withstand the questions and context of a news story, not unvarnished and unchecked twitter.com/JenParker393/s…
1,485 people are talking about this
Amid the Twitter outrage, however, editorial page editor James Bennet posted a series of tweets on Wednesday evening to explain his decision to run the op-ed. He cited a number of previous pieces in which the editorial board and other opinion writers defended the protests and "crusaded for years against the underlying, systemic cruelties that led to these protests."
But, he said, "Times Opinion owes it to our readers to show them counter-arguments, particularly those made by people in a position to set policy."
"We understand that many readers find Senator Cotton's argument painful, even dangerous," Bennet concluded. "We believe that is one reason it requires public scrutiny and debate."
Cotton's op-ed argued that "local law enforcement in some cities desperately needs backup" and that the military "stands ready" to help.
The op-ed suggested the Insurrection Act be invoked, arguing that deploying the U.S. military into American cities "doesn't amount to 'martial law.'"
Throughout the day, Times staffers publicly revolted over the piece.
"I feel compelled to say that I disagree with every word in that Tom Cotton op-ed and it does not reflect my values," tweeted Charlie Warzel, a writer for The Times' opinion section.
"Christ," tweeted tech reporter Mike Isaac.
"Exactly," replied tech reporter Cecilia Kang.
This piece has led to a LOT of nyt slack conversations today(Opinion is wholly separate from the newsroom.) twitter.com/KaraRBrown/sta…
See Stacy Cowley's other Tweets
i feel compelled to say that i disagree with every word in that Tom Cotton op-ed and it does not reflect my values. this piece does though nytimes.com/2020/06/02/opi…
1,067 people are talking about this
1,955 people are talking about this
Stacy Cowley, a business reporter, tweeted that the piece had "led to a LOT" of discussion on Slack, an instant messaging application that companies use to allow their employees to communicate.
Davey Alba, a tech reporter, wrote on Twitter that Cotton's argument that members of Antifa were "infiltrating protest marches to exploit Floyd's death for their own anarchic purposes" had been debunked by the paper
"Our own newspaper has reported that this is misinformation," Alba tweeted.
A spokesperson for Cotton's office declined to comment and referred CNN back to The Times.
Wednesday's publication of Cotton's op-ed isn't the first time that the Times' opinion section has generated criticism.
Bennet's tenure has been marked by a series of high-profile blunders.
The Times' opinion section was left reeling in September after it fumbled a story about an allegation of sexual misconduct against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
The opinion vertical faced heat last summer for the actions of columnist Bret Stephens.
And last April, the opinion section apologized after publishing an anti-Semitic cartoon in its international edition.
Tom Cotton: Send In the Troops
The nation must restore order. The military stands ready.
By
Mr. Cotton, a Republican, is a United States senator from Arkansas.
June 3, 2020
Editors’ Note, June 5, 2020:
After publication, this essay met strong criticism from many readers (and many Times colleagues), prompting editors to review the piece and the editing process. Based on that review, we have concluded that the essay fell short of our standards and should not have been published.
The basic arguments advanced by Senator Cotton — however objectionable people may find them — represent a newsworthy part of the current debate. But given the life-and-death importance of the topic, the senator’s influential position and the gravity of the steps he advocates, the essay should have undergone the highest level of scrutiny. Instead, the editing process was rushed and flawed, and senior editors were not sufficiently involved. While Senator Cotton and his staff cooperated fully in our editing process, the Op-Ed should have been subject to further substantial revisions — as is frequently the case with such essays — or rejected.
For example, the published piece presents as facts assertions about the role of “cadres of left-wing radicals like antifa”; in fact, those allegations have not been substantiated and have been widely questioned. Editors should have sought further corroboration of those assertions, or removed them from the piece. The assertion that police officers “bore the brunt” of the violence is an overstatement that should have been challenged. The essay also includes a reference to a “constitutional duty” that was intended as a paraphrase; it should not have been rendered as a quotation.
Beyond those factual questions, the tone of the essay in places is needlessly harsh and falls short of the thoughtful approach that advances useful debate. Editors should have offered suggestions to address those problems. The headline — which was written by The Times, not Senator Cotton — was incendiary and should not have been used.
Finally, we failed to offer appropriate additional context — either in the text or the presentation — that could have helped readers place Senator Cotton’s views within a larger framework of debate.
This week, rioters have plunged many American cities into anarchy, recalling the widespread violence of the 1960s.
New York City suffered the worst of the riots Monday night, as Mayor Bill de Blasio stood by while Midtown Manhattan descended into lawlessness. Bands of looters roved the streets, smashing and emptying hundreds of businesses. Some even drove exotic cars; the riots were carnivals for the thrill-seeking rich as well as other criminal elements.
Outnumbered police officers, encumbered by feckless politicians, bore the brunt of the violence. In New York State, rioters ran over officers with cars on at least three occasions. In Las Vegas, an officer is in “grave” condition after being shot in the head by a rioter. In St. Louis, four police officers were shot as they attempted to disperse a mob throwing bricks and dumping gasoline; in a separate incident, a 77-year-old retired police captain was shot to death as he tried to stop looters from ransacking a pawnshop. This is “somebody’s granddaddy,” a bystander screamed at the scene.
Some elites have excused this orgy of violence in the spirit of radical chic, calling it an understandable response to the wrongful death of George Floyd. Those excuses are built on a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters. A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants.
No comments:
Post a Comment