Get the latest BPR news delivered free to your inbox daily. SIGN UP HERE.
Liberals, to include many inside the newspaper, are up in arms over the New York Times allowing a Republican voice to be heard amid the din over the patently untrue media narrative about racially-driven police brutality — recent data simply does not support the politically driven claim.
Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., wrote an op-ed run by the Times in support of President Donald Trump saying that if necessary, he will send in the U.S. military to quell the violent rioting seen from “peaceful protesters,” as the media like to describe rioters, who set out to destroy any number of American cities and viciously attack citizens who tried to stop them.
“Send in the troops,” the Times headline screamed. “The nation must restore order. The military stands ready.”
Cotton pointed to the use of the military to protect black students integrating Little Rock Central High School in the piece that called for deterring lawbreakers.
You can imagine how the pacifist left accepted that, though they’re okay with domestic terrorists from Antifa wreaking havoc on the streets. For liberals, what is seen below seems to be a preferred option:
Fifth Avenue, New York City.
Don’t vote for Democrats.
pic.twitter.com/LMIBqDyL8j— 𝕞𝕖𝕝𝕚𝕤𝕤𝕒 🙈🙉🙊 (@my3monkees) June 5, 2020
The editorial board of the once storied New York Times got blasted out of the water for running Cotton’s op-ed, and are now hastily beating a retreat, claiming the piece “did not meet our standards” and that the paper is now making changes to its opinion section.
“We’ve examined the piece and the process leading up to its publication,” Eileen Murphy, a Times spokeswoman, said in a statement. “This review made clear that a rushed editorial process led to the publication of an Op-Ed that did not meet our standards. As a result, we’re planning to examine both short-term and long-term changes, to include expanding our fact-checking operation and reducing the number of Op-Eds we publish.”
There was an outright mutiny at the Old Gray Lady over Cotton’s words, with dozens of Times staff taking to Twitter to declare: “Running this puts Black @NYTimes staff in danger.”
The mutineers also ran interference for Antifa, which was named by Cotton — this is far from the first time the liberal media has done so.
https://twitter.com/daveyalba/status/1268301747593842689?s=20
In support of the claim about “standards” and a “rushed editorial process,” word put out on the street is that no one, to include editorial page editor James Bennet took the time to read Cotton’s editorial before it was published.
I have confirmed with a source on the NYT slack that this comment was made.
If true, who read it? https://t.co/eNYkshc7QK
— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yashar) June 4, 2020
But then, the Times reported as much — it was noted online that at least the paper is covering its own demise.
The paper reported Thursday: “James Bennet, the editor in charge of the opinion section, said in a meeting with staff members late in the day that he had not read the essay before it was published.”
It was also noted that more than 800 staff members signed a letter protesting its publication.
The Times said a town-hall meeting was scheduled for Friday to allow employees “to express their concerns to company leaders, including A. G. Sulzberger, the publisher; Dean Baquet, the executive editor; and Mr. Bennet, the editorial page editor.”
Taking the lead from high school students, there’s talk of a “virtual walkout” Friday at the paper, whatever that is — will it amount to an extra long coffee break?
More than 160 NYT employees planned a “virtual walkout” for Friday morning over the @SenTomCotton op-ed, per NYT. https://t.co/kfpQfdXXtg
— Jonathan Swan (@jonathanvswan) June 5, 2020
Cotton spokesperson Caroline Tabler disputed the Times’ claim about the editorial process being compromised.
“We weren’t contacted by the New York Times in advance of this statement and our editorial process was similar to our past experiences at the New York Times and other publications. We’re curious to know what part of that process and this piece didn’t meet their standards,” Tabler said in a statement.
Cotton spox @CarolineTabler sends this along. https://t.co/OpIc3xGphb pic.twitter.com/hnd8ppVIqM
— Jake Sherman (@JakeSherman) June 4, 2020
As is often the case, Cotton’s opinion drew far more eyes because of the meltdown on the left than it would have otherwise.
From his front porch, the Republican senator seemed to be enjoying the show.
How is everyone at the @nytimes doing tonight?
— Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) June 5, 2020
Meanwhile, Times opinion writer Bari Weiss got roasted when she weighed in on the “civil war inside The New York Times,” citing the dynamic at play between the world view of the new guard and the old guard.
The civil war inside The New York Times between the (mostly young) wokes the (mostly 40+) liberals is the same one raging inside other publications and companies across the country. The dynamic is always the same. (Thread.)
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) June 4, 2020
The New Guard has a different worldview, one articulated best by @JonHaidt and @glukianoff. They call it "safetyism," in which the right of people to feel emotionally and psychologically safe trumps what were previously considered core liberal values, like free speech.
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) June 4, 2020
Tellingly, she pointed to the “campus culture wars” as a factor — the institutions of higher learning in America are little more than indoctrination centers of progressive, Marxist-inspired anti-American thought.
In effect, the new progressive guard is far more radical than your run-of-the-mill liberal.
I've been mocked by many people over the past few years for writing about the campus culture wars. They told me it was a sideshow. But this was always why it mattered: The people who graduated from those campuses would rise to power inside key institutions and transform them.
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) June 4, 2020
Here's one way to think about what's at stake: The New York Times motto is "all the news that's fit to print." One group emphasizes the word "all." The other, the word "fit."
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) June 4, 2020
In the end, Weiss contorts herself enough to yield to the mob — and, perhaps, her paycheck — in suggesting that “maybe” Cotton’s op-ed did fall outside the lines.
W/r/t Tom Cotton’s oped and the choice to run it: I agree with our critics that it’s a dodge to say “we want a totally open marketplace of ideas!” There are limits. Obviously. The question is: does his view fall outside those limits? Maybe the answer is yes.
— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) June 4, 2020
DONATE TO BIZPAC REVIEW
Please help us! If you are fed up with letting radical big tech execs, phony fact-checkers, tyrannical liberals and a lying mainstream media have unprecedented power over your news please consider making a donation to BPR to help us fight them. Now is the time. Truth has never been more critical!
Tom@bizpacreview.com
The longest-tenured writer at BizPac Review, Tom grew up in Maryland before moving to Central Florida as a young teen. It is in the Sunshine State that he honed both his passion for politics and his writing skills.
Comment
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
