Quote:
|
Editors. Someone like Bennet has to try to find people who write op-eds well, and to get a mix of them that's interesting to readers.
|
Cotton seems pretty interesting to a lot of people. If Bennet wanted debate, he got it.
Quote:
|
And readers. I pay to read the NYT, although more to get other sections than the op-ed.
|
I agree. The Oped section is a glorified Yahoo page. The quality blows. Hence, what's the fuss about another lousy Oped? Oh, right -- it offended crazy left wing cranks. (Those of us in the middle looked at it and said, as Icky noted, "Oh, that douchebag is actually not just a douchebag... he's crazy.")
Right. Except that's my point, not yours. You think Cotton shouldn't have a platform. I say, let the readers decide. Compel the lazy fucks to finally use their brains. Or not.
Quote:
|
I think the problem you are backing into is, what does the mainstream press do with a conservative movement that is not interested in or open to debate?
|
No. I think the problem is people expanding the sphere of deviancy so they can shape consensus. I am far happier with crazy right wing Fox fighting crazy left wing MSNBC than I am with the NYTimes playing centrist while engaging in soft censorship. Paul Krugman, who I usually enjoy, has written batshit crazy stuff on par with Cotton that is considered moderate because he is normalized. In reality, he's a demented low rent version of Stiglitz (who is far better) high on a head full of comments from half smart fan boys telling him he understands political systems.
Quote:
|
But you're ideologically committed to both-sidesism, so you can't admit that's the problem that cost Bennet his job.
|
You're committed to the delusion you know better than the marketplace of ideas.
Quote:
|
You've said a lot of head-scratching things, but this is up there. What sort of expertise do you think is required to read a newspaper?
|
This is exactly the reply I anticipated. When you need a therapist, I'm $500/hr.
The expertise required is that of a true centrist editor who can find the very best arguments from the left and right and balance them against each other to keep a vibrant dialogue.
This person went extinct long ago. Replaced with lamentable sorts who think
Vox is the Oped/news page of record. Or crazed loons who think Breitbart is reality.
And since you're a fan of flagging false equivalence, let me flag "false elevation." When Vox trots out opinion as fact, it's well done. I actually read it quite a bit. But doing that is still mixing opinion with fact, and usually selling the former as the latter. That one does it better, more entertainingly, even slightly more honestly, does not change the fact that both are engaged in a game of bullshitting the public.
And when you suggest the Oped pages should be staffed with more Ezra Kleins than Steve Bannons, you're just advocating selling a slightly less pungent form of bullshit, which you happen to favor.
This is why I don't read Opeds in the Times or Post anymore (unless linked elsewhere). I assume some dishonest broker is picking favorites.
