Not Cottoning to Tom Cotton

Times Staffers in a Lather Over Fascist Op-Ed

The outrage was fast and furious to The New York Times  running an op-ed from reliably vile Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas calling on President Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act and crack down on protesters. This is among the least incendiary passages:

"In normal times, local law enforcement can uphold public order. But in rare moments, like ours today, more is needed, even if many politicians prefer to wring their hands while the country burns."

  Reaction to the Times even considering the op-ed for publication, let alone running it, poured out from all corners of the Twittersphere, including Black staffers at the Times. The language, like in this tweet from editorial board member Mara Gay, was similar:

Running this puts black people in danger. And other Americans standing up for our humanity and democracy, too. @nytimes pic.twitter.com/MQAA2WJ6YG

— Mara Gay (@MaraGay) June 4, 2020

Also weighing in was Sewell Chan, the editorial page editor of the Los Angeles Times and former boy wonder at the NYT, who finished out there as, wait for it, op-ed editor. He wasn't happy with Cotton mussing up his once-beloved page.

THREAD: As a former @nytimes Op-Ed editor I am reluctant to weigh in on my alma mater. But the decision to publish @SenTomCotton calling for troop deployments to quell unrest falls short of sound journalistic practice. pic.twitter.com/SgXSndkq8l

— Sewell Chan (@sewellchan) June 3, 2020

No doubt, the pain from George Floyd's murder 10 days on has yet to subside. That's both understandable and expected. However, the brouhaha over the op-ed has many shades of the cancel culture that has stained many a college campus--some variation of "Not only do I not like what you say or think, I'm not going to let you say it here under any circumstances." That colleges have too often kowtowed to this sickening groupthink has sent higher education to a new low.

As Marc Tracy's article in today's Times about the controversy dutifully reminds us, 

It is not unusual for right-leaning opinion articles in The Times to attract criticism. This time, the outcry from readers, Times staff members and alumni of the paper was strong enough to draw an online defense of the essay’s publication from James Bennet, the editorial page editor.

“Times Opinion owes it to our readers to show them counter-arguments, particularly those made by people in a position to set policy,” Mr. Bennet wrote in a thread on Twitter. “We understand that many readers find Senator Cotton’s argument painful, even dangerous. We believe that is one reason it requires public scrutiny and debate.”

Exactly. While one could reasonably argue that some things are better left unsaid, or unpublished, I would counter that the op-ed is an excellent forum to not only showcase the extremism of Cotton and his fellow miscreants, but to also serve as a call to action. In other words, if you didn't think now was a good time to donate to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (Cotton is up for reelection, though he probably doesn't have much to worry about), check the calendar. And reread Cotton's op-ed.

On a side note, this paragraph from Tracy's article was both curious and troubling:

The opinion section is run separately from the news side. Mr. Bennet reports to the publisher, A.G. Sulzberger, as does the paper’s executive editor, Dean Baquet, who is in charge of news coverage. The distinction between opinion pieces and news articles is sometimes lost on readers, who may see an Op-Ed — promoted on the same home page — as just another Times article.

That can only happen if you read the Times online, as most do. It's easy enough to make the distinction in print, of course. And while I won't proselytize yet again for why you should be holding the physical Times in your hand, this should nonetheless highlight the need for the Times digital staff to more explicitly distinguish between news and opinion, if this is indeed an issue. If that distinction is lost on readers, it needs to be found pronto.