Mea Culpa: New York Times Caves To Protests And Apologizes For Posting Conservative Opinion

440px-The_Yellow_Press_by_L.M._GlackensIn an act that virtually stands alone in the abandonment of self-defining values, the New York Times last night caved to protests from its own writers to apologize for publishing a conservative opinion piece by a ranking Republican senator. On Thursday, the editors had rightfully held firm on the need for the paper to hear all viewpoints as publishing a column by Sen. Tom Cotton (R, Ark.) calling for the use of military troops to quell rioting.  Times editorial page editor James Bennet and Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger issued defenses of the use of the opinion section to hear all sides of such national controversies. We discussed that position yesterday and many of us heralded the editors for their courage despite the overwhelming calls for private censorship.  Then, the newspaper and its journalistic ethics entirely collapsed with an announcement that effectively declared an original sin “mea culpa, mea culpa, mea máxima culpa” (“through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault.”

The column by Cotton was discussing a statutory option used by presidents in the past in times of riot.  He was arguing that troops could be used support insufficient law enforcement numbers.  He stresses that his column concerns the violence not the protests. While I disagree with the column, Cotton does not denounce the protests or the protesters. Rather than he objects to “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.”  In doing so, he not only cited the history of such use but cautioned that it should only be used temporarily to get hold of the situation:

“This venerable law, nearly as old as our republic itself, doesn’t amount to ‘martial law’ or the end of democracy, as some excitable critics, ignorant of both the law and our history, have comically suggested. In fact, the federal government has a constitutional duty to the states to ‘protect each of them from domestic violence.’ Throughout our history, presidents have exercised this authority on dozens of occasions to protect law-abiding citizens from disorder.”

I have repeatedly opposed such a move as unnecessary and inimical to the exercise of free speech. However, it is a major policy question being discussed by one of the key member of Congress.  Instead of responding to the arguments, various writers demanded that the editors be removed and no such opposing views be published in the Times.

download-1In a breathtaking surrender, the newspaper has apologized and not only promised an investigation in how such an opposing view could find itself on its pages but promised to reduce the number of editorials in the future.  In a statement that will go done in journalistic infamy, the newspaper announced:

“We’ve examined the piece and the process leading up to its publication. This review made clear that a rushed editorial process led to the publication of an Op-Ed that did not meet our standards. As a result, we’re planning to examine both short term and long term changes, to include expanding our fact-checking operation and reduction the number of op-eds we publish.”

The prior attacks on the newspaper capture the rising intolerance for opposing views in our society. This action shows that such attacks can succeed even with the largest and most esteemed publications.

We have seen the expansion of speech codes and regulation on campus and calls for private censorship by companies ranging from Twitter to Facebook. Politicians, including Vice President Joe Biden, have called for removal of comments deemed misinformation, including political commentary. What is most chilling about this controversy is that this intolerance for opposing views has not only reached our major newspapers but the demands are coming from journalists and writers themselves. This is akin to priests declaring their opposition to the free exercise of religion.  You cannot claim to support free speech and seek to silence those who hold opposing views.

225px-BrandeislAs Justice Brandeis said, the solution to any bad speech is more speech, not forced silence. When editors run columns, they do not endorse the sentiments or viewpoints. They foster debate and dialogue in allowing alternative views to be heard. Sen. Cotton was advocating an option that has been used previously in this country and is a focus of debate in Washington. These writers would impose a bar on any who would argue for the option, leaving the newspaper little more than a hollow echo chamber of approved speech. As I stated, I have opposed the option discussion by Sen. Cotton. However, I find the anti-free speech views of these writers far more chilling than his exercise of free speech.

The anger over the editorial shows the cost of echo journalism and how far it has penetrated in the profession. Too many have become so accustomed to news delivered in a hermetically sealed echo chamber that even the appearance of an opposing view is now offensive and intolerable.  Some of these writers supply the very echoes that bounce unchallenged on many sites. The New York Times just formally declared that it would reframe its publication to be a part of the echo journalistic model.

I have been a columnist and commentator for decades and I never thought I would see the day when writers called for private censorship of views.  We are gleefully killing the very thing that sustains us.

210 thoughts on “Mea Culpa: New York Times Caves To Protests And Apologizes For Posting Conservative Opinion”

  1. “I have repeatedly opposed such a move as unnecessary and inimical to the exercise of free speech.”

    Free speech does not have to hide itself among violent people and looters nor should we be forced to permit freedom of speech to be hyjacked by looters.

    1. Legal questions – uhummm, cough, cough JT! – about who has authority to call these troops in, and more obviously how does Barr have authority to direct the siege of Lafayette Park, which he did? That’s not WH property.

    2. CTHD– She is a stupid twit, no offense to her intended. By withdrawing all federal law enforcement officers, she would be exposing all of our historical monuments, the White House, the Capitol, Congressional and Senate office buildings, the Supreme Court and the countless other federal buildings in DC to her friends in Antifa and others bent on destruction for the sake of destruction. Metropolitan Police must be saying “say what?!!!” because they do not have the personnel to replace the Park Police, the U.S. Capitol Police, the Federal Protective Service officers and others. No wonder DC is such a governmental disaster. If the mayors aren’t hooked on cocaine, they’re just plain stupid. And naming the street near the White House Antifa Place is something someone in the 6th or 7th grade might do because they would not yet have the mental capacity to understand that an adult governmental official should not endorse a criminal enterprise that has engaged in and promoted looting, burning, and beating innocent civilians as part of their mission. But, to hell with her city. She has got cred with the democrats because she has shown she will gladly sacrifice her city to prove how much she hates Trump.

      1. You’ve either misinterpreted or purposefully misrepresented what she wrote. I hope it’s just the former.

        “all extraordinary federal law enforcement and military presence” (what she said) is not synonymous with “all federal law enforcement officers” (your substitution). “Extraordinary” means those who aren’t ordinarily there. The Park Police, U.S. Capitol Police, … who are ordinarily there would remain.

        And she didn’t “nam[e] the street near the White House Antifa Place.” She wrote “The section of 16th street in front of the White House is now officially ‘Black Lives Matter Plaza.’” You’re smart enough to understand the difference between Antifa and BLM. If you think BLM is “a criminal enterprise that has engaged in and promoted looting, burning, and beating innocent civilians as part of their mission,” man up and provide the evidence for it. Or man up and admit the mistake.

    1. Yes, it’s called getting arrested. They know most often they will be let go, and it is viewed as a badge of honor. This from a friend in Los Angeles where they are not actually booked, just detained briefly. Most of them are idiot children being played by older mentors. These groups actually remind me a lot more of the old Aryan Youth of the 80s and 90s than they do the hippie generation, and I find it incredibly ironic that old hippies have latched onto them.

  2. All of this is a result of Baby Boomers and their offspring abandoning their responsibilities as disciplined, intelligent, rigorous adults and parents so that their children would follow in their trajectory. No where to be found in America are resilient, driven, self-disciplined beings who shun self-gratification and employ thorough, daily introspection. “Mea culpa” used to mean something.

    The NYT posits it must have a left leaning tilt while the opposing side stipulates all must have a “conservative” tilt. Again and again we have such fluid, shallow, amorphous labels that mean whatever the “believer” wants it to mean.

    Best solution is to send police officers home for a month and let it rip. the Left will be thrilled that cops have be defunded, and the right will be thrilled that they can use their guns: assuming they can run and shoot at the same time for more than 1000 feet. In a matter of days neither will be left standing and only then will the Earth have a chance to regenerate, once humans are gone. Bring it. Both sides are an embarrassment to the human race

    1. “No where to be found in America are resilient, driven, self-disciplined beings who shun self-gratification and employ thorough, daily introspection.”
      I know plenty of them. They get no press, no encouragement and no support from the media. It’s a darn shame, too. Let the mob rule for a few weeks in these areas of capitulation and kneeling. Those “leaders” will get a lesson in the revolution and vigilantism they won’t forget — if they survive. Just give the good people some fair warning to get out.

        1. bythebook– I wish people would read some Texas history from the 1800s and see what happens when law enforcement is not around to deal with criminals. Vigilantes were real as was the rope they used to dispense justice. And in case people think it was a racial thing, more whites were lynched than blacks during this time period. Stealing cattle and horses was a lynching offense. One can easily imagine what would happen to an arsonist or someone who seriously injured another. I have not carried or owned a gun since I was with the police many, many years ago but I can assure you that if any of this criminal conduct comes to my small Texas town, I will be visiting my local Academy. Of course, those criminals are not likely to come here because most of our citizens, black, Hispanic and white, already are locked and loaded and we all like our peaceful town.

    2. I agree with this 200%, and have been discussing with others precisely the same sentiment. We are witnessing the logical outcome of the mentality you describe. Eliminating the police force is a demand for the ultimate ‘safe space’ by highly triggered and unstable young adults.

  3. The Insurrection Act can now be put in the same box as the Bible and the Constitution in that there are so many people who are happy to tell you what’s in them despite the fact that they’ve never read them.

    Jefferson, Jackson, Grant, Hayes, Cleveland, Wilson, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and GHW Bush all invoked the act. Grant, Eisenhower and Kennedy did so despite the fact that it wasn’t requested by any state.

  4. If it was a real news agency behaving like this, I’d be alarmed, but the NY Times has been a joke for years. Tabloid journalism has higher standards.

  5. Here’s a novel idea, how about posting an opposing editorial that attempts to refute everything Senator Cotton wrote. How about holding Cotton’s op-ed for a day, and they could allow one of their top liberal writers to write that opposition column? The Times and CNN could then host a town hall to allow the two to explain their viewpoints?

  6. Hard to find something this inconsequential to write not one, but now two columns on.

    The NYTs is a business, not a public park like Lafayette. Of course they make subjective decisions on what they print on their editorial page every day and twice on Sunday. So does the notoriously right wing WSJ, though the rest of their paper is widely and justly admired for reporting. So f….g what? Don’t buy it if reading Tom Cotton is must-do event for you.

    Now, how about covering the very important legal issues around using the military against civilians, rioters or not, or clearing by force a pubic space of lawful citizens gathered peaceably so another citizen can stage a photo op with a book he’s never read?

    1. bythebook, Ya got to give Trump credit for showing off his “religious freedoms” by clearing out a public space of lawful citizens with military police.

    2. The ACLU and some others have filed suit against Trump, Barr, and others for that:

      “This case is about the President and Attorney General of the United States ordering the use of violence against peaceful demonstrators who were speaking out against discriminatory police brutality targeted at Black people. … Without provocation, Defendants directed their agents in the U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Park Police, D.C. National Guard, and U.S. Military Police to fire tear gas, pepper spray capsules, rubber bullets and flash bombs into the crowd to shatter the peaceful gathering, forcing demonstrators to flee the area. Many peaceful demonstrators were injured, some severely, by this unprovoked attack. …”

    1. Olly,
      Look what the mob recently did to Drew Brees. His sin was just standing up for his country. Sadly, he apologized letting the mob win. This after he just pledged 5 million to help his community for the covid scare.

          1. He’s in the twilight of his career. And as you said, worth millions. It was the perfect opportunity for him to plant that flag and prove his commitment to honor it. I cannot imagine his WWII veteran grandfathers would feel that they’ve been honored by their grandson.

          2. 37 years later (1979), pay had skyrocketed all the way up to $520 per month. Free medical, dental. Free room and board. I was living the life. Not as well as the Iranians also living in our barracks. And then for some reason, they weren’t there anymore. Anyway, good times.

  7. Julián Castro:
    “A woman is beaten, shot with pepper balls, and tackled to the ground for simply breaking an officer’s hold on her. We must end qualified immunity so that victims and their families can get justice in civil courts.”
    (and I’ll say that it looks like the officer holding her briefly gropes her breast ~1 sec. into the video, and if so, that would explain why she tried to break free)

    “This is a police riot. In video after video, police give the American people more reasons to take to the streets and demand change. We need a wholesale overhaul of policing.”

    We must end qualified immunity. Police violence — when unprovoked or out of proportion to the provocation — is unacceptable.

    1. Committ – I will agree to get rid of qualified immunity for cops when they get rid of it for everybody.

      1. What you personally “agree to” has no legal significance. What matters here are our laws about it and court rulings about it.

        Rep. Amash: “Qualified immunity was created by the Supreme Court in contravention of the text of the statute and the intent of Congress. It is time for us to correct their mistake. My bill, the Ending Qualified Immunity Act, does this by explicitly noting in the statute that the elements of qualified immunity outlined by the Supreme Court are not a defense to liability.” His bill already has multiple cosponsors.
        And I hope that SCOTUS will choose to hear one or more of the 8 cases involving qualified immunity that have appealed to them:

          1. Or perhaps you’re misremembering “Great cases like hard cases make bad law” (Oliver Wendell Holmes).

            1. Or perhaps you’re misremembering…(Oliver Wendell Holmes).

              You really should follow his counsel:

              Three generations of imbeciles are enough

              Oliver Wendell Holmes

              1. “when I was in law school, I had heard of the case Buck v. Bell from 1927 when the Supreme Court upheld eugenic sterilization. … And in any list of Supreme Court decisions that are terribly wrong, any list of the worst Supreme Court decisions, Buck v. Bell would have to rank very highly. … A lot of those ideas were really precursors to Nazism.”
                From a Fresh Air interview with Adam Cohen, author of “Imbeciles,” “about the eugenics movement in the early 20th century and the Supreme Court case legalizing sterilization”:

                “for me, this was one of the saddest parts of reading up on the case ’cause when I was in law school, Oliver Wendell Holmes was really held up as the pinnacle of American justice, as a heroic figure, someone who was wounded three times in the Civil War, as a great thinker and really a model for all aspiring lawyers and judges. He actually was in many ways – although he had this reputation of being a progressive – not a progressive and not a very good guy.”

                1. “Three generations of imbeciles are enough”

                  Same with aliases. More than three and it is time to go.

                2. Note the complete use of quotes. That demonstrates the inability to promote an argument. Many times when there is argument between the quotes they or the quotes are off target.

  8. Again, this is what the Times said:
    “We’ve examined the piece and the process leading up to its publication. This review made clear that a rushed editorial process led to the publication of an Op-Ed that did not meet our standards. As a result, we’re planning to examine both short term and long term changes, to include expanding our fact-checking operation and reduction the number of op-eds we publish.”

    Turley infers from that all sorts of things from this statement that the Times didn’t say and didn’t imply.

    If he’d paid attention to all of the relevant facts — if he’d read the Times own reporting about this — he’d know that “Near the end of the day, James Bennet, the editor in charge of the opinion section, said in a meeting with staff members that he had not read the essay before it was published.” This is shameful on Bennet’s part, but at least he is admitting it. The NYT didn’t say or imply that they wouldn’t have published Mr. Cotton’s op-ed after having it go through a normal editorial process to correct some of its weaknesses. For example, presumably they would have asked Cotton to abandon his claim that “cadres of left-wing radicals like antifa infiltrating protest marches to exploit Floyd’s death for their own anarchic purposes,” given that “The FBI has found no evidence that the American militant anti-fascist movement Antifa was involved in violence that erupted during national protests over the death of George Floyd” ( ).

    I bet that Mr. Turley often doesn’t read relevant text before writing his columns. For example, in his column on Samantha Power’s testimony, the column suggests that he never actually read her testimony. He doesn’t seem to have read all of the relevant text in discussing the NYT’s choice here. Maybe he has something to learn from Mr. Bennet’s admission.

    1. Committ – one thing I found interesting is the NYT saying they had standards. I find that laughable. 🙂

      1. Paul, neither does CTHD. He sounds like a semi educated leftist thug that is willing to kill or injure people to foment revolution in this country.

        1. It’s a Gainesville sock-puppet. I’ve lost track of how many alternate identities he and Shill are using.

          1. “It’s a Gainesville sock-puppet. I’ve lost track of how many alternate identities he and Shill are using.”
            I thought so. He’s got the same tired moralizing tone and thin as veneer argumentation. Another clown to scroll through!

          2. What or who is “Gainesville”?
            (I know that there are a few cities with that name, like Gainesville, FL, and Gainesville, GA, but clearly that’s not what you’re referring to here.)

            I haven’t posted here under any other names, nor do you present any evidence for your bizarre claim. I have to admit, I’m curious what you base your claim on. Do you simply find it hard to believe that multiple people with views that are different from yours would post here?

              1. I quite enjoy listening to actual crickets. It’s a very peaceful sound.
                But when people respond with “crickets,” it’s often an indication that they have no good argument.

            1. SOP from the weak minded here.

              “Who are those guys?”

              Yeah, they caught me. I’m all of them and not only paid by Soros and sent by Media Matters, I get paid by the scalp and am getting rich.

          3. DSS, High likelihood. If you note my first reply to him, a newcomer, was a bit rough. I thought he was a new alias from someone else familiar to me and told him so. Back in my memory returns a memory (could be false) of the icon he is presently using for that alias. It was under the name anonymous and at that time I was suspicious that it could be Anon’s. That was a long time ago. I note when new characters appear the number of postings by Anon decrease and the others increase to make up the short fall. I think Hellvis and the preceding Paulie were also Anon names. The syntax seems similar enough to Anon’s and the lack of education comes through.

            Anon is retired and has little to do except play with his grandson who you saw. Can I be absolutely postive? No, I don’t have to be, but I urge Darren to look and see if this is a discussion list or a list of singular trolls using multiple names. That is more like propaganda than free speech and can eventually destroy the blog so Professor Turley owes it to his followers to think about the effect of all this on free speech.

      1. Uh, they haven’t shown it yet. Barr has a record of spinning things to fit the Trump narrative. I would guess Antifa is active, but there may be more anarchistic type groups involved. Arrest and prosecute them all.

        From your link:

        “…to date the DOJ has not provided direct evidence of widespread involvement of antifa followers in the violence seen thus far across the country.

        In contrast, on Wednesday the DOJ announced the arrest of three men connected to the far-right ‘Boogaloo’ movement who were allegedly plotting to incite violence at protests in Las Vegas.

        Asked by ABC News’ Senior Justice Correspondent Pierre Thomas why he didn’t name-check those arrests, Barr pointed to his opening statement where he acknowledged “actors of a variety of different political persuasions” who were also carrying out violence….”

      2. Barr claims “We have evidence that Antifa and other similar extremist groups, as well as actors of a variety of different political persuasions have been involved in instigating and participating in the violent activity. And we are also seeing foreign actors playing all sides to exacerbate the violence.”

        But he doesn’t present any actual evidence about Antifa, and it’s pretty strange for him to specifically name Antifa but no other group, especially when there’s evidence for some other groups. For example, the Reno Gazette Journal reported that Stephen Parshall, Andrew Lynam Jr., and William Loomis have been charged with “two federal charges — conspiracy to damage and destroy by fire and explosive, and possession of unregistered firearms — along with multiple terrorism-related state charges” and “A complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas on Wednesday said the men self-identified as part of the ‘boogaloo’ movement. … They were arrested Saturday on the way to a protest in downtown Las Vegas after filling gas cans at a parking lot and making Molotov cocktails in glass bottles, according to a copy of the criminal complaint”).

        Barr has been known to be mistaken (and even to lie), so unless he presents actual evidence about Antifa, I have no reason to assume that his claim is accurate.

        Do *you* have actual evidence? Or do you only have Barr’s claim about it?

    2. Committ, Turley is using the “Bill Barr Summary” method, only get the point you want out, other facts are to be left out. But your post is spot-on.

    3. “But he doesn’t present any actual evidence about Antifa”

      When Obama said something it was accepted without question. Suddenly absolute proof is required when we know some of the same people are involved even if they don’t announce Antifa is a part. The left is trying to demonstrate to the powerful that there is only one party and that those supporting anyone else will be ruined. That is anti-thetical to our democracy.

  9. It took very little brains over the last 30 years so to see where the illiberal left, the Press and the Democrats who used them were headed. I’ve been sad to watch smart people actually support these people. But now we can all agree… the deranged and ignorant emperor is naked. They hate the US and in general they just hate. I had kept my cheap and negotiated subscription to the NYT so I could see what was going on behind “enemy” lines. I am going to cancel it now. It is too decrepit to support in any way.

    1. Sign up for the headline news to keep up with the rag. That will help keep you in the loop. You get so many reads a month and then if need be you can figure out the rest.

    2. This is an attempt by the left to overthrow the government. Most likely it is funded from sources like Soros, but also probably given support by places such as the CCP. That the leadership of the Democrat Party supports such violence is a very bad sign. This is not to say that Trump will be overthrown. That is not happening. It seems like the instillation of PC fear is going to be ramped up to more of a physical fear where such power has been attained. This seems to be part of a process.

        1. DSS, thanks for speaking out. That is what is needed. Right now I believe some of our generals are cowering.

      1. Allan,
        Overthrow? It may be more accurate to say they desire to take control of the government, by any means necessary.

        The Doctrine of the Democrats
        The strange phenomenon of our times — one which will probably astound our descendants — is the doctrine based on this triple hypothesis: the total inertness of mankind, the omnipotence of the law, and the infallibility of the legislator. These three ideas form the sacred symbol of those who proclaim themselves totally democratic.

        The advocates of this doctrine also profess to be social. So far as they are democratic, they place unlimited faith in mankind. But so far as they are social, they regard mankind as little better than mud. Let us examine this contrast in greater detail.

        What is the attitude of the democrat when political rights are under discussion? How does he regard the people when a legislator is to be chosen? Ah, then it is claimed that the people have an instinctive wisdom; they are gifted with the finest perception; their will is always right; the general will cannot err; voting cannot be too universal.

        When it is time to vote, apparently the voter is not to be asked for any guarantee of his wisdom. His will and capacity to choose wisely are taken for granted. Can the people be mistaken? Are we not living in an age of enlightenment? What! are the people always to be kept on leashes? Have they not won their rights by great effort and sacrifice? Have they not given ample proof of their intelligence and wisdom? Are they not adults? Are they not capable of judging for themselves? Do they not know what is best for themselves? Is there a class or a man who would be so bold as to set himself above the people, and judge and act for them? No, no, the people are and should be free. They desire to manage their own affairs, and they shall do so.

        But when the legislator is finally elected — ah! then indeed does the tone of his speech undergo a radical change. The people are returned to passiveness, inertness, and unconsciousness; the legislator enters into omnipotence. Now it is for him to initiate, to direct, to propel, and to organize. Mankind has only to submit; the hour of despotism has struck. We now observe this fatal idea: The people who, during the election, were so wise, so moral, and so perfect, now have no tendencies whatever; or if they have any, they are tendencies that lead downward into degradation. The Law, Frederic Bastiat

        1. “The Law” was published in France in 1850 and was in no way addressing the U.S. Democratic Party.

          You say “they desire to take control of the government, by any means necessary,” but that applies at least as well to some Republicans (like Mitch McConnell, though I’d say that even with him there are some means he wouldn’t stoop to, like actual civil war) as to some Democrats, and in neither case does it apply to the entire party.

          1. and was in no way addressing the U.S. Democratic Party.

            You’re awfully defensive over a post that never mentioned the U.S. Democratic party.

            As far as control, it’s obvious that both parties want it. That’s not the problem. The problem is what they will do to get it, what they will do once they have it and to keep it. There is little doubt as to which party is willing to burn this country to the ground for power and control. Hint: They’ve failed to remove President Trump from office.

            1. You were responding to a comment that mentioned the U.S. Democratic party, and you used the pronoun “they” when you wrote “It may be more accurate to say they desire to take control of the government, by any means necessary.” The referent of “they” was ambiguous, but you now seem to confirm that you were referring to Democrats (e.g., when you refer to the “party … [that] failed to remove President Trump from office,” which I interpret as a reference to his impeachment).

              LOL that you consider my response “defensive.”

              I accept that you **believe** that the Democratic “party is willing to burn this country to the ground for power and control.” But just because someone believes something doesn’t imply that it’s **true**.

              Just like you **believe** “they desire to take control of the government, by any means necessary,” but your belief doesn’t imply that it’s **true**.

              Your opinions are not facts.
              For the record, my opinions aren’t facts either, and I don’t conflate them.

                1. Please do state the facts that “inform [your] opinions” that the Democratic “party is willing to burn this country to the ground for power and control” and “they desire to take control of the government, by any means necessary.”

                  Be sure to provide the disconfirming evidence as well as the confirming evidence.

                  1. You will receive all the facts and evidence right about the time your mind actually becomes committed to an honest discussion.

                    I’ll wait.

                    1. LOL at your weak excuse for not providing evidence for your earlier claim, especially since your excuse is another evidenceless claim.

                      Are you familiar with the concept of philosophic burden of proof? If not, let me know, and I’ll give you a reference. You have a burden of proof for your claims regardless of what you believe about me.

                    2. You have a burden of proof for your claims regardless of what you believe about me.

                      LOL! A burden you say. Perhaps if I cared to convince you that my opinion should be believed, then I would effort to unburden myself of that obligation. However, I have no rational or reasonable expectation that any amount of evidence or facts would persuade you to adjust your opinion towards mine. For what it’s worth, everything informing my opinion is in the public domain. I am confident the facts and evidence I would provide would not be new information for you to process. In any event, you may now GFY. 😉

                    3. Shouldn’t be necessary Olly. I don’t think Commit has deep regard for your mind or others here, yet strives mightily and regularly to provides facts and logic, perhaps as missionary work, but even with little hope they’ll be recognized.

                    4. SMH.

                      I’m not asking you to “unburden” yourself. The phrase “burden of proof” has a specific meaning, and I even asked you whether you were familiar with the concept or if you needed a reference to understand what it means. Since it appears that you do need a reference, this is a decent overview:
                      Focus on the claims with references, or just go directly to the references for more reading.

                      “I have no rational or reasonable expectation that any amount of evidence or facts would persuade you to adjust your opinion towards mine.”

                      a) You’re begging the question.
                      b) You have the burden of proof for your claims regardless of what you believe about me.

                      “everything informing my opinion is in the public domain.”

                      But that doesn’t imply that you’re paying attention to disconfirming evidence along with confirming evidence for your beliefs. One can easily cherrypick evidence in the public domain.

  10. There were once people who came to a career in journalism thinking they could be professionals, and defend free speech as a content-free and absolute right. That’s gone. Social media has destroyed the possibility of journalism as a financially rewarding career, a genuinely insulated profession, where “impartiality” is still important. The young journalists are a tribe in open rebellion against that view. For them, to need financial security is a “weakness”; sure, they’ll accept it, but only temporarily.

    Instead, they are on a mission to use their power to force society to accept their values, and any expression that opposes that view is an enemy. To them, and many academics in the universities, it is a betrayal of their mission. They are demanding, and taking, control. That means the “old guard” that thinks that “free speech” means what it says, can be just as dangerous as the “fascists”.

  11. THE EXTREME LEFT TRUMP HATING MOB of ?Journalist?, which NY TIMES has used to distort, lie, be anti Trump 24 hours a day, now turns on their leadership. What do expect history has shown this happens when the MOB gets worked up by their own Corrupt Leadership they turn on them and become even more radical.

    NYT was right to print Sen. Cotton editorial, free speech, that is the Left does not believe in free speech, just like Antifa.

    NYT MGMT you need to FIRE THE ENTIRE STAFF, their are real good journalist out there, center/right/left who can write true and good stories and reporting

  12. As the economy of American journalism has gone into decline, capable people in the younger generation have taken their talents elsewhere. They recruit among low calibre people. (And, see Fred Barnes on who among his interns was subject to recruitment calls by metropolitan newspapers a generation ago. When you could make a satisfactory bourgeois living in journalism, the media were going out of their way to avoid hiring people who had identifiable conservative sympathies). It’s not merely a monoculture, its a monoculture populated with damaged goods. This is the house that Pinch built, and his worthless son shows no interest in any renovations.

    1. “They recruit among low calibre people. ”

      DSS, when you are trying to control a nation and its people do you want smart independent reporters that might see through the fog and see what is on the horizon.

      Stupid low caliber people fill the spaces between the activists.

  13. The piece was calling for NO QUARTER of protesters!

    That’s beyond “conservative”, that’s antithetical to our principles as a nation.

    WTF, Turley? Have you fallen so far as to not recognize that?

    1. Dear Olaf

      Thank you for pointing out that “no quarter” orders —-which mean showing the enemy no mercy even if they attempt to surrender —- are in fact WAR CRIMES.

      Turkey used to give a f**k before he was blinded by the gold he gets from the right.

      God Bless you for caring.

    2. Let the peice speak for itself.

      Regardless, even if you are correct it is free speech.

      “If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind…”
      J. S. Mill

      “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”

      [Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)]”

      Louis Brandeis

      “He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that.”
      J. S. Mill

      1. Choosing not to print an op-ed in its current form — with at least one significant factual error that I noted above — isn’t denying free speech anyone, nor is it “enforced silence.”

        No one has a right to be published in the Times, and Cotton remained free to say whatever he wanted elsewhere.

        If you’re going to make a free speech argument, understand what free speech does and doesn’t include.

        1. No, Tom Cotten has no “right” to be published in the Times, but this isn’t about that. The rebels want to send the message to the Times Board that it can no longer count on the same “control” it had in the past. The Board capitulated because it knows it is being challenged, and can’t win. Whatever the Times comes to mean in the future, there is a new, and secret, standard of journalism that will always be judged for ideological purity. The idea that citizens benefit from a “balanced” presentation of all relevant opinion is a thing of the past.

          1. They could just ignore the challenge. They can win. They just do not care to do so.

          2. “The Board capitulated because it knows it is being challenged…”

            Or the Board recognized that they f*cked up by not having the op-ed go through the standard editing process, and they printed an op-ed with a false statement in it.

            False statements don’t contribute to “balance.”

            Ignoring the actual problems with the op-ed and the process, and suggesting that this is solely ideological isn’t productive.

      2. That is not the point. The objective is power while one attempts to fragment any opposition. Quote whatever you wish and believe whatever you wish but when despotic power tries to take control they laugh at such a fragmented attempt at fighting back.

    3. Olaf, read the article. Turley repeatedly said he disagreed with Senator Cotton’s premise, but he was upset with the NYT for quashing free speech. He never endorsed the article itself.

  14. How ridiculous. Cotton said,

    “Update (2003ET): A ‘child mob’ is in charge of the New York Times according to Senator Tom Cotton (R-AK), who appeared on Fox News to discuss the paper’s internal civil war in which young, ‘woke’ staff are revolting over Cotton’s Op-Ed calling for the military to support US police forces during civil unrest, while older NYT staff argue that divergent opinions from their own deserve a platform.

    “My Op-Ed doesn’t meet the New York Times’ standards,” said Cotton. “It far exceeds their standards, which are normally full of left-wing, sophomoric drivel,” he added.

    Cotton then slammed the paper’s editor and publisher for flip-flopping on their decision to stand behind publishing Cotton’s commentary, only to fold like a cheap suit “in the face of the woke mob of woke kids that are in their newsroom.”

    “The New York Times has run editorials from Vladimir Putin, Recep Erdogan, by the Taliban – no problem there. But run one editorial from Tom Cotton on a position that’s supported by 58% of the American people – that we have a duty to protect our citizens’ lives and livelihoods, well, ‘we’re gonna have to review our processes and we’re gonna cut the number of Op-Eds that we run,’ said Cotton.”

    But also this:
    In a post weighing in on the debate, the Columbia Journalism Review argued that Cotton’s views shouldn’t have been published because it was “built on lies”. However, the sections of the paper that it described as lies weren’t lies at all, but descriptions of the chaos across the country, recounted with perhaps a touch of hyperbole. But leftists frequently test the bounds of what’s believable, like when they accuse crime reporters of “spreading false narratives” when they report on black-on-black crime statistics.

    “The problem with this idea of the Times as an open forum for views of all stripes — no matter how abhorrent — is that by opening the door to all “operative opinion” (as a member of the Opinion section described it to me a couple of years ago), the Times becomes a platform for those who are hostile to its core values and at direct odds with the New York Times Company mission to “seek the truth and help people understand the world.”

    The core problem with Cotton’s column, it seems to me, isn’t that its arguments are painful or dangerous (though they are those things too). It’s that it’s built on lies. “This week, rioters have plunged many American cities into anarchy, recalling the widespread violence of the 1960s,” it begins, before trotting out hyperbolic (and false) phrases like “the riots were a carnival for the thrill-seeking rich as well as other criminal elements,” “orgy of violence,” and “cadres of left-wing radicals like Antifa infiltrating protest marches.”

    Recent days have been marked by looting and violence. But the violence has sometimes been prompted by the police themselves, and the incidents getting the most attention have been isolated to a few commercial districts. The areas around the protests (to say nothing of the entirety of “American cities”) have been relatively calm and peaceful. As Davey Alba, a Times reporter who covers misinformation, pointed out on Twitter, the paper’s news side has already reported how promoting claims of unbridled urban unrest is part of the “untruths, conspiracy theories, and other false information…running rampant online” and being pushed by Trump and his allies.

    Remember: These are the same people who forced their employers to describe riots as “protests” and looters as “demonstrators” leading to jarring headlines like “Violence and looting rage as George Floyd protests lead to clashes with cops in several states”.

    The notion that we can trust them to be arbiters of the truth as simply laughable.”

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Recall that the Columbia School of Journalism installed Victor Navasky as chairman of the board of their institutional publication. Navasky had edited a humor magazine, then worked for the New York Times Book Review, then edited The Nation, a gift from his wealthy wife. He had no history whatsoever in reportorial journalism and spent his career in opinion journalism as an exemplar of the faction in our public life who favored the enemy during the Cold War. If Columbia wants to improve the mean seriousness of its offerings, it will shut the J-school down and discharge its employees.

    2. The “cut and paste” thing you do is weak. Your king fu is mediocre and your handle is truly deranged. If you want to be like a failed presidential assassin & brainwashed member of the Manson family, that speaks volumes!

    3. It wasn’t a “conservative” post, Johnny. It was a seriously mentally deficient screed intended to ratchet up violence in America. I understand that The Wall Street Journal refused to publish it. What does that tell you? Plus, can’t you get down off your ridiculously high horse for one minute and see what you are endorsing and what you are attacking are all muddled up?

  15. The fact that an apology was necessary bespeaks the partisan and inappropriate nature of a propaganda machine passing as a news source. The mask is off for good on the media.

Leave a Reply