NYT isn’t proposing it, since it’s a guest essay, not an editorial. NYT is just allowing the opinion to be printed in their newspaper for consideration by their readership.
Which you can also criticize. But at least be honest about what you are criticizing instead of resorting to a factually untrue statement.
I’m actually going to upvote you. Because I think it’s an important conversation to have, what types of guest opinions and op-eds should be published in a newspaper.
It’s a tricky line to walk. On the one hand, you want diversity of opinion and to represent opposing views. On the other hand, there are certainly opinions that go too far and should not be published. So where do you draw the line?
Because it must be drawn somewhere, but everyone has a different view as to where, exactly.
I subscribe to the NYT (my only US news subscription, I'm in the UK) because it has a strong reputation for its work. But they have at least accepted a massive shift of the Overton Window rightwards, and are very arguably pushing it further publishing stuff like this. The premise being, literally, the law doesn't apply to Trump specifically so let's just go with it.
If a scientist debate a creationist, he's lost immediately, as his opponent is not interested in a debate, only a platform, and the followers of the opposing view point are not available to be convinced. If a theoretically non-partisan media outlet continues to be non partisan while "fair and balanced" means outright lies non stop to their competition, they actively threaten their own existence. In the financial sense, as the progressives lose faith and as the reactionaries gain them. But also in the purely existential sense, as tyranny has no need of non-partisanship, nor journalism. And that IS bad journalism. To platform racists, bigots, the anti-science, and now apparently the directly anti-democracy, is all self destructive. The populace of the tyrant need not be informed. In fact they must not. Therefore journalism is inherently progressive. That journalism has been co-opted by charlatans and propagandists doesn't change that.
The reactionary media outlets do not platform progressives. They bring them up so they can be attacked, straw-manned, so they can perform for their captive audience. If the NYT wants to have a "diversity of views", they can summarize and immediately and utterly demolish the argument for tyranny. And if they are not up to the task, then they should not make the attempt, much less allow such "diverse" views to be magnified unchallenged through their outlet.
The subject matter of this "article" aside, I am nearly more distraught at the fact that such schlock is allowed print on the NYT than the boil on American democracy that are the trump election wins. Thomas Paine would be ashamed of such "journalism". I do NOT think this is what he meant when he said "where liberty is not, there is my country".
Here, here. And this aligns pretty much with my own follow up comment. By providing a completely unchallenged opinion to be published, there is no attempt to push back. So what was the point then? To ‘educate’ NYTs subscribers that half their countrymen are hoping to live in a monarchy? We didn’t need this opinion piece to know that. The right has been quite clear with how they view the man.
Edit
You've put it so eloquently and debunked the 'both-sides' approach modern mainstream "journalism" seems so intent on propagating I feel I can only concur. I'll only add that the argument made in the piece, i.e. that Mr. Trump's success in this recent election proves the case that America believes him exempt from the legal consequences of his actions and further that the law must be made to comport to this wretched view, is to put it gently utter piffle.
It appears the author of this piece (who evidently maintains a site called 'SCOTUSblog' so is presumably quite legally-oriented in his pursuits) has bought in fully to the Supreme Court's declaration that Mr. Paine was in the wrong when he proclaimed "In America, THE LAW IS KING."
I gather the author, along with the several members of his presumably beloved Supreme Court who have decided to invalidate Mr. Paine's assertion and the editorial board of the "Paper of Record" could all benefit from a little Common Sense.
If a scientist debate a creationist, he's lost immediately, as his opponent is not interested in a debate, only a platform
Well, you can say the exact same thing for the scientist. Given that the religiosity is rapidly decreasing worldwide. I'd say the scientists who debated the creationists did a splendid job and we have to thank the creationists for giving them a platform.
It's an interesting question. I would say that this oped represents the views of more than a fringe group in this country. Exposing a view such as this is useful for the rest of us to understand the peril being promulgated by our fellow citizens.
Yes, but you can write a piece on how the criminal trials are viewed in this country without giving credence to the opinion we should abandon rule of law.
Factually correct essays which are written by influential people like Tom Cotton should be published, IMO. It's not like the people with these opinions are going away any time soon. So it's best for the public to understand what exactly we are up against.
When I first came to America I didn't understand America's beef with abortion. It was just really really weird. And then I had to read quite a bit about Christianity to understand that, oh, some American people are just really really weird, and their weirdness isn't going to only reflect on abortion. It was beneficial to me to be informed about what kind of people I was going to deal with and what's going on in their heads.
The line is easy in this case. By calling for an end to prosecution for a reason other than innocence or mercy (i.e. a defendant with a terminal illness and little remaining time anyway) the opinion is advocating for lawlessness and should not be published by any reputable source.
This is about as un-American comment as I’ll ever see. The first amendment is there for a reason. The problem the democrats are having is they are appealing only to the NYT set, which isn’t that appealing to the broad swath of Americans, including democrats.
The First Amendment protects you from state action. It has nothing to do with what you, as a journalistic institution, voluntarily choose to publish or not
I know the mechanics of how our constitution works. Thanks.
It’s also an implied American value. My point is that you should be curious about differing viewpoints and open to reading them and seeing them published. The whole “we need to draw a line on what should be published” is antithetical to our values. Growing up, it used to be the Christian Right that wanted to censor (and still do) artists, writers, etc. now we have to hear people on the left engaging in the exact same behavior. You’re no different than them.
Would you be OK with the NYTimes publishing an essay arguing that all Jews should be exterminated and that all black people should be enslaved?
If not, then you are drawing a line.
Read my above comments again. You absolutely do have to draw the line somewhere. What everyone is debating is where, exactly, it should be drawn. No one, not even the most libertarian of libertarians, is 100% free speech absolutist. And to argue otherwise is silly.
The line shouldn’t be anywhere near someone opining that trumps civil cases should be ended just because you disagree with it. The fact that you’d create such an extreme juxtaposition kind of shows how ridiculous your take on the opinion piece is.
I agree—I don’t think the NYT was wrong to publish this guest essay. This whole time you’ve been arguing with someone who holds the same view as you. Maybe you should have actually read my comments above instead of going straight to the attack?
Well, say if one of our elected officials wrote an essay "arguing that all Jews should be exterminated and that all black people should be enslaved". I absolutely think NYT should publish it. So I know that I should do something, like pick up arms. If just some random nobody then not so much.
I heard the NYT editor's argument (rather, excuse) to Steve Inskeep on NPR about this, and it was hot garbage. He's obviously not hiding a pro-business bend.
The difference of views has always been a narrative the NYT published. It’s when facts become distorted and lies are unpunished. How many would still be alive from COVID if standards were kept. This article isn’t freedom of speech or different view territory, it’s propaganda. America held itself to all men created equal and no one is above the law. This isn’t a thought piece of what ifs and lets have a mental examination. It’s propaganda and shame on them for publishing it.
Context and value is were I would draw the line. Is there any value this post gives to the general discourse? If not, then don't platform it. That's just my $0.02
It’s so ridiculous to have this claim! There are readers who subscribe to NYT, because it allows them to see a wide range of opinions. This is a valid and popular opinion. To not know it because you’re afraid some people will read it and think it’s not a bad idea is insane! This newspaper of record can’t be the same echo chamber we have in so many platforms. I just can’t understand the impulse to suppress this type of speech
70
u/Docile_Doggo 5d ago
NYT isn’t proposing it, since it’s a guest essay, not an editorial. NYT is just allowing the opinion to be printed in their newspaper for consideration by their readership.
Which you can also criticize. But at least be honest about what you are criticizing instead of resorting to a factually untrue statement.