A nice summary of the situation, but I'd strongly disagree with this statement. "The Times for years has actively refused to acknowledge GOP's dangerous, radical turn, and it started during Barack Obama's presidency." The GOP's radical turn long predates Obama. It did accelerate during Obama's terms, but we cannot forget the efforts to crush dissent under GWB, the explicit efforts to overturn an election under Clinton, and the Reagan years. The truth is that the GOP has been an authoritarian, antidemocratic trash fire for a long time.
All true, but I'd like to add something. In addition to being a fascist and a bigot, Cotton was factually inaccurate. Now, that sounds like a really weird sentence, but there it is: for years, The Times has published Op-Ed pieces that include legitimate howlers, and won't vet them. That's how they wound up being so embarrassed by some of their columnists (not to name names, Bret Stephens, but it goes back to the likes of William Safire, as wonderful a writer as he could be). Then again, maybe The Times is just immune to embarrassment.
The other thing is that there is a marvelous old profile of Joe Lelyveld, who I don't think it is an exaggeration to say saved The Times after the Jayson Blair blow-up demonstrated the devastation wrought by the Howell Raines regime. And Raines might have survived what happened because the current publisher's father never has suffered from a lack of confidence in his own perfection. But the staff mutinied. And this leads to a line that may seem out of place but is very useful to remember: Bob Lipsyte, the great sports columnist, mentioned Raines's frequent invocations of Bear Bryant. It's from this profile: https://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/features/11547/. I have to highlight the Lipsyte quote:
“If Howell really had been the coach of a football team,” says Lipsyte, “he would have been successful, because jocks are basically sissies and they roll over for alpha males. But what he had was a bunch of nerds, and nerds take it and take it and take it and then show up in the cafeteria with an AK-47. And that’s what happened at the Times.”
When Bennett admitted he hadn't actually READ the Cotton OP-ED that should've been grounds for his firing. Do not understand why NYT hierarchy continually gets away with work behavior that would spell termination for mere mortals. And, the "we will not call a liar a liar" posture meant NYT lost its vaunted credibility a long time ago.
Pretty much the entire establishment media have been loathe to criticize the GOP since at least the 1980s. Meanwhile, literally everything the Democrats do is subject to criticism. The problem now is the old slippery slope: when the media have essentially supported sooo many Republican abominations over the years, it’s hard to suddenly criticize a GOP POTUS on the basis of being historically unfit and unqualified. Trump’s responses to the pandemic and demonstrations following Floyd’s murder are historic failures — disasters — and the media still are hesitant to point it out, or that we should maybe be concerned that POTUS is unhinged.
As for the Cotton piece, as Eric notes, it seems that a piece is considered publishable for no more or better reason than the writer is a Republican in high office. Running a piece like Cotton’s, then, should require an editorial preceding it, to the extent that the stuff discussed is beyond the pale, is only being published because US senator and is otherwise deranged crap, or words to that effect.
Media are clearly accomplice therefore responsible to the rise of alt right fascism! For them it is the insurance of more future sales as well. Imagine the mess it will be with another trumpist presidency. Plenty articles to print and sell. Moreover their billionaires owners support the dismantling of so many government agencies which affect their operations. Insane.
We shouldn’t be surprised that the WSJ won’t stand up to Trump. It’s owned by Rupert Murdoch. But long before that it’s editorial page was full of right wing crackpot propaganda but apparently there was a “firewall” between the editorial side and the news side back then.
Robert Bartley was the WSJ editorial page editor for years. Max Boot described how Bartley wanted to hire him to write about economics even though Boot had no background in economics. Bartley deliberately hired people like that because he knew that anyone who understood economics would not be willing to help him spread the supply-side economics fairytales. Clearly he knew it was bunk.
Because the WSJ was so influential with business leaders and “moderate” Republicans Bartley was able to do a lot of damage with his lies. He was the propagandist to the Republican elite.
A nice summary of the situation, but I'd strongly disagree with this statement. "The Times for years has actively refused to acknowledge GOP's dangerous, radical turn, and it started during Barack Obama's presidency." The GOP's radical turn long predates Obama. It did accelerate during Obama's terms, but we cannot forget the efforts to crush dissent under GWB, the explicit efforts to overturn an election under Clinton, and the Reagan years. The truth is that the GOP has been an authoritarian, antidemocratic trash fire for a long time.
Sad but true re: press looking away from GOP abuses for very long time *while* simultaneously insisting GOP and Dems are simply mirror opposites
All true, but I'd like to add something. In addition to being a fascist and a bigot, Cotton was factually inaccurate. Now, that sounds like a really weird sentence, but there it is: for years, The Times has published Op-Ed pieces that include legitimate howlers, and won't vet them. That's how they wound up being so embarrassed by some of their columnists (not to name names, Bret Stephens, but it goes back to the likes of William Safire, as wonderful a writer as he could be). Then again, maybe The Times is just immune to embarrassment.
The other thing is that there is a marvelous old profile of Joe Lelyveld, who I don't think it is an exaggeration to say saved The Times after the Jayson Blair blow-up demonstrated the devastation wrought by the Howell Raines regime. And Raines might have survived what happened because the current publisher's father never has suffered from a lack of confidence in his own perfection. But the staff mutinied. And this leads to a line that may seem out of place but is very useful to remember: Bob Lipsyte, the great sports columnist, mentioned Raines's frequent invocations of Bear Bryant. It's from this profile: https://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/features/11547/. I have to highlight the Lipsyte quote:
“If Howell really had been the coach of a football team,” says Lipsyte, “he would have been successful, because jocks are basically sissies and they roll over for alpha males. But what he had was a bunch of nerds, and nerds take it and take it and take it and then show up in the cafeteria with an AK-47. And that’s what happened at the Times.”
When Bennett admitted he hadn't actually READ the Cotton OP-ED that should've been grounds for his firing. Do not understand why NYT hierarchy continually gets away with work behavior that would spell termination for mere mortals. And, the "we will not call a liar a liar" posture meant NYT lost its vaunted credibility a long time ago.
yes. not reading a pro-martial law op-Ed by US senator before publishing seems like a major problem.
Pandering to a possible POTUS by running a vile piece of crap surely isn’t a fireable offense at the Times.
All I will say is that many companies mistake their employees as simply mindless drones whose focus should tow the line of the corporate hive.
Pretty much the entire establishment media have been loathe to criticize the GOP since at least the 1980s. Meanwhile, literally everything the Democrats do is subject to criticism. The problem now is the old slippery slope: when the media have essentially supported sooo many Republican abominations over the years, it’s hard to suddenly criticize a GOP POTUS on the basis of being historically unfit and unqualified. Trump’s responses to the pandemic and demonstrations following Floyd’s murder are historic failures — disasters — and the media still are hesitant to point it out, or that we should maybe be concerned that POTUS is unhinged.
As for the Cotton piece, as Eric notes, it seems that a piece is considered publishable for no more or better reason than the writer is a Republican in high office. Running a piece like Cotton’s, then, should require an editorial preceding it, to the extent that the stuff discussed is beyond the pale, is only being published because US senator and is otherwise deranged crap, or words to that effect.
Thank you for being a clear and consistent voice.
thank you. I appreciate it
Media are clearly accomplice therefore responsible to the rise of alt right fascism! For them it is the insurance of more future sales as well. Imagine the mess it will be with another trumpist presidency. Plenty articles to print and sell. Moreover their billionaires owners support the dismantling of so many government agencies which affect their operations. Insane.
It’s George, not Gerald Floyd
fixed on website; apologies
that's a really good point....these guys are always angling trying to impress the boss. if that means being pro-martial law, so be it.
So well stated!...I actually still subscribe to WSJ. it used to be a really great newspaper (minus the always-insane editorial page)
Did the Journal run this?
We shouldn’t be surprised that the WSJ won’t stand up to Trump. It’s owned by Rupert Murdoch. But long before that it’s editorial page was full of right wing crackpot propaganda but apparently there was a “firewall” between the editorial side and the news side back then.
Robert Bartley was the WSJ editorial page editor for years. Max Boot described how Bartley wanted to hire him to write about economics even though Boot had no background in economics. Bartley deliberately hired people like that because he knew that anyone who understood economics would not be willing to help him spread the supply-side economics fairytales. Clearly he knew it was bunk.
Because the WSJ was so influential with business leaders and “moderate” Republicans Bartley was able to do a lot of damage with his lies. He was the propagandist to the Republican elite.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/a-conservative-defector-with-a-clear-vision-of-trumps-rise.html