Rebellion at the Times: What’s fit to print?
An unprecedented “staff rebellion” at The New York Times last week forced journalists to reconsider deep questions about “what can count as permissible opinion,” said Joe Pompeo in VanityFair.com. The outcry came in response to an op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), headlined “Send in the Troops.” Cotton called for “an overwhelming show of force” from military forces to crush “nihilist” protesters who, he said, are “simply out for loot and the thrill of destruction.” Dozens of Times journalists—mostly young reporters—expressed outrage, saying the op-ed put black staffers “in danger.” Editorial page editor James Bennet came under such withering internal criticism, he resigned. With the country on edge, the Times decided, Cotton’s inflammatory demand for troops on the streets was the equivalent of shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater.
“The role of an opinion section is to foster debate,” said Kevin Williamson in NationalReview.com. By that standard, an op-ed by a prominent U.S. senator about invoking the Insurrection Act was eminently worth publishing. Liberals should have the courage to win these debates “on the merits,” not by silencing “the enemy”—which is how they see every Republican. To justify censoring Cotton, the Times’ staffers claimed the op-ed threatened their “workplace safety,” said Robby Soave in Reason. com. “Woke young people” have learned to weaponize “safetyism” against anyone who disagrees with them—and this trend should concern everyone. Newsrooms, college campuses, and society at large “shouldn’t live in fear of difficult conversations.”
In this case, the threat to safety is not imaginary, said Margaret Sullivan in WashingtonPost.com. During the protests, hundreds of journalists and thousands of protesters have been clubbed, beaten, and pepper-sprayed by militarized cops. “In this polarized, dangerous moment,” journalists are facing difficult questions about their role in society. Many news consumers say, “Just tell me the bare facts.” That sounds appealing, but in reality, all journalism “is the product of choices.” Every day, we decide what to amplify, what to investigate, and what not to publish. Should deniers of the Sandy Hook massacre be featured on newspaper op-ed pages? Of course not. Cotton’s views were worth including in a balanced news story, but his evidence-free claim that only a military crackdown could stop “cadres of left-wing radicals like antifa” did not deserve the Times’ “imprimatur.”