zlacker

For me it was not that it was a right/left opinion piece.

It was a piece calling for the government to murder protesters which the editor solicited and published without reading. Nor was any context or commentary provided indicating such.

(edit) You can also see, now, after the backlash, NYT agrees that it probably shouldn't have been published.

Based on that review, we have concluded that the essay fell short of our standards and should not have been published.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protes...

>>bagels+(OP)
Do you actually believe the editor didn't read it? That is a pretty blatant and obvious lie to control the fallout.

>>freshh+O
I actually don't believe it, but I have no evidence to support that belief. But it doesn't matter, because that actually makes it more reprehensible.

>>bagels+71
They published a story about the publication of the article and the events leading up to it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/business/new-york-times-o...

The editor in question also resigned.

Not saying it justifies the original publication, but I appreciate the way it was handled.

>>bagels+(OP)
I'm quite certain the Senator did not call for the murder of protestors. I actually read the article.

While as a life-long military person I don't agree with his conclusions, you are mischaracterizing his article and I strongly suspect haven't read it.

>>kjafta+a3
It was handled that way only after first handling it incredlby, horrendously badly. They were dragged kicking and screaming by their entire staff into handling it correctly only after a week of absolutely bungling it.

>>DagAgr+WL
I subscribe to the Times for that staff. I skip over the clickbait of the Stephenses and Brookses and read Blow and Bouie.

>>bagels+(OP)
It was a piece calling for the government to murder protesters which the editor solicited and published without reading.

Now, you too are making things up. This is where “fake news” charges come from.

Here’s what it actually said:

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.

But the rioting has nothing to do with George Floyd, whose bereaved relatives have condemned violence. On the contrary, nihilist criminals are simply out for loot and the thrill of destruction, with cadres of left-wing radicals like antifa infiltrating protest marches to exploit Floyd’s death for their own anarchic purposes.

These rioters, if not subdued, not only will destroy the livelihoods of law-abiding citizens but will also take more innocent lives.

Sounds reasonable to me. This also proved correct. And I agree with the article.

>>lawnch+k21
>On the contrary, nihilist criminals are simply out for loot and the thrill of destruction, with cadres of left-wing radicals like antifa infiltrating protest marches to exploit Floyd’s death for their own anarchic purposes.

It does constitute an opinion, but an incorrect one. Taking over a police station and a city hall in Seattle, for example, is pretty impressive - and it strikes violence at the heart of perceived violence.

No, Antifa is not a club or an organization. There is no membership. And there is no bouncer at the protests to make sure everyone is on the same page or of the same opinion - it is flat out inevitable that some people will be of poor opinion and behavior.

The Right's framing of the relatively small amount of violence is indicative of a police state. The reaction by police unions in the face of calls for punishing abusive cops is indicative of the violent arm of the state protecting its own absolute authority over the people.

>>unethi+WF1
I stopped participating in public protests because there's as yet no effective way to counter, neutralize provocateurs.