Forums

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Not sure who you were reading, but it wasn't me. My reaction to the Cotton story was that the issue that everyone was up in arms about was boring, and not worth the ink.

Right. I know how incensed you get about boring things.

So you cited the reaction of black reporters to Cotton's story why then? They were bored too?

Note the effort there to change the question to the one that I think is more interesting, which is, what is the editor of the NYT supposed to do these days?

You answered that question yourself (your words):

"We all agree that there are some ideas that are beyond the pale, that there's a line to be drawn. There's nothing objective about those lines.

But I don't think he's saying Cotton's ideas shouldn't be debated. I think he's saying that we need more honesty about what Cotton's ideas are."

Cotton was pretty clear about what his ideas were.

So if you're keeping score at home, my "reaction" to Cotton was zero posts where I said that Cotton is "too offensive to our shared values as a nation," words that you put in quotation marks but which I do not believe I have ever said.

That was an obvious paraphrase. I may have even offered that quote with a caveat that noted as much. In either case, it was clearly an approximation of your argument that certain things are beyond the pale.

If the NYT does its job, its readers will understand all about Cotton's views.

It did, and they do.

IMO, it should do this by reporting on his views as news, treating the substance what Cotton thinks and does as a real story that people should understand, rather than with horserace journalism, faux objectivity or simply turning over part of the op-ed page to Cotton without editorial supervision. When the NYT does that, it's an abdication of what journalism should do.

This has it backwards. The OpEd page is not journalism. It is exactly the place where people should consider Cotton's opinion and decide whether it's wise or not.

I haven't "admitted" I would use borders to define any topics out of bounds -- I pointed out that, contra your notion that the NYT is just presenting a debate, it has *always* defined what is acceptable debate and what is not by deciding what and to whom it will give space. I personally prefer to have a wider range of opinions on the NYT op-ed than it has had (and so does Jeet Heer), but if its editors are going to cast a wider net then they have to be *more selective* about which of those views they choose to share -- among other things, it's just math. If they can find a good piece on man-boy love, I'm game to read it. If they run a shit piece on man-boy love because the author went to prep school with the editor, and the author wants to troll readers for the attention, I'm not in favor of that. Are you?

No. But I don't think this was a situation similar to your prep school friend hypothetical. Cotton's was a view that is in fact supported by a lot of people. Could it have been better drafted? Yes. But I think the most significant thing to come out of it was the debate about how much of the country actually supports using troops to control protests. There was a lot of argument about whether 58% was accurate. Whatever the number is, it is significant. That's a window into the "silent majority" in the country.

I doubt it, except for the relativist part.

You know my beliefs:

1. Fiscally, moderate;
2. Socially liberal

Free speech? Absolutist
Pro-choice
Favoring negative rights as opposed to positive ones? Yup.
Health care? In favor of a single payer system
UBI? In favor of it out of necessity
Pro-immigration
Regulation? In favor of smart, minimal forms, and elimination of most of the useless forms we have.
Gay marriage? Pro
Size of govt? Obscenely oversized
Defense? Cut the budget in half
Foreign policy? Moderate
Justice reform? Vehemently pro
Taxes? Spent well, I'm fine with an increase; spent inefficiently as they are, no.

Again -- you are missing the point. I'm not saying that what the NYT has always done is right and good -- I'm saying that it has *always* limited the views on the op-ed page in a way you say you have a principled objection to. If that really bothered you, you would be more interested in talking about what you would do if *you* ran the NYT, the question I tried to pivot to. Like many Trump voters, you would rather be on the outside, complaining about shit, instead of picturing yourself on the inside, trying to make things better.

If I were inside the Times, I would run pieces focusing on how the masses are being divided and conquered. I'd offend my advertisers and allow more voices advising the poor of all races and backgrounds to unite. To not buy into the marketing that divides them, and instead get together and topple the people with the money by using their combined votes. I'd focus on class. I'd focus on nepotism in the system. I'd allow voices that explained the propaganda. I'd allow voices who'd tell them we are a kleptocracy of a sort, but not because of Trump. Because we've allowed corporations to take over the government. I'd allow voices who'd explain that there is little difference between the parties, which all serve the same special interests.

People would believe in almost no institutions if I had that page.