I did not like the editorial, but after things like the the NYT helping Bush lie us into war with Iraq and them , it seems bizarre. IIRC no editors resigned then.
You are sharing a tweet from Stephan Miller. A man who wants to see America as a white only nation. The information you are sharing is beginning to make it look like you follow a lot of white nationalists. https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch...nity-white-nationalism-revealed-leaked-emails
Trumps press secretary position will likely be open in a week or two if he is looking for a temporary job.
“ I’ve just submitted my resume guys. Even though they had already promoted a white girl to this position, I’m more skilled than she’d ever dreamt to be. Check out my reporting in the past with the papers, nobody can touch me”._ Jason Blair
I'm glad because after @Commodore posted that fake tweet from White Nationalists I was concerned. But anyone who supports Trump needs to question why his senior advisor is Stephen Miller
I don't agree with Cotton, but I think publishing his view is newsworthy and important. But like with most misguided censorship accusations, keep in mind who owns the soapbox. The NYT owns this one. If they want to keep Cotton out or demand edits to his essay before publishing it, they can. Cotton can make his own newspaper if he's not happy with the demands placed on him for borrowing the NYT's platform for public speech. (Also re the free speech argument: please understand that newspaper opinion sections are a platform for lobbying. When I was in corporate affairs for a company, we would find a Name who would broadly agree with what policy decision we advocated for, and then we'd pay a ghost writer to write the opinion to attribute to that Name. We'd call the opinion departments of several newspapers to try to find a place to publish. The ghost writer would work with the editor to get it fit to print. We'd make sure the company and the Name were all fine with the finished product. Then we'd measure the number of clicks it got, the retweets, etc. I guess that's what free speech is nowadays.) Does NYT do their readership a disservice by political correctness gone amok? In their statement on why they have a beef with this opinion, I think they lay out a pretty good argument. It is in the public interest to publish dumb takes from powerful policymakers. But it isn't carte blanche for bomb throwers. NYT needs to keep unsubstantiated fact-claims out. They need to keep the piece rational. It doesn't serve the NYT readership to let politicians write just whatever; they need to adhere to some rules of journalistic integrity. And so they describe some ways where they don't think that happened. Here is the preamble that the NYT now has on Tom Cotton's op-ed:
