I want to explain why we published the piece today by Senator Tom Cotton.
I’ll probably get in trouble for this, but to not say something would be immoral. As a black woman, as a journalist, as an American, I am deeply ashamed that we ran this.
NYT has put a note atop Cotton's op-ed, saying it "should not have been published," not because its views are "objectionable" but because it failed to meet "standards," including "factual" errors. Bull. They're concocting excuses to renounce the piece. /1
The nation must restore order. The military stands ready.
This note has now been attached to the opinion piece
I’m a local cop. Not a solider. This senator was a soldier. Not a local cop. I’m not afraid of my neighbors. This senator is scared to death of his neighbors. Reject his calls for war.
These riots have become carnivals for the thrill-seeking rich and other other criminal elements. They need to end now.
This is the most openly authoritarian piece of writing I've read from an American politician who has been in power during my lifetime.
I commend the courage of the leadership. They ran my piece—even if they disagreed with it—and stood up to the woke progressive mob in their own newsroom. This was the right thing to do.
Congratulations to the for finally publishing their editors' note to my piece! It took probably half their staff 50+ hours to say nothing. They could have saved a lot of time if they said the truth: The is now run by the woke mob.
"In some cases the rioters still outnumber the police and Guard combined" is a remarkably ridiculous - and untrue - thing to say.
"Editors are fired for running controversial pieces" — presumably this is a reference to the publishing Tom Cotton's editorial calling for an "overwhelming show of force" by the military to "subdue" Black Lives Matter protesters.
Senator Tom Cotton is under attack by left wing media activists because he called for an end to the riots! Americans aren’t blind to injustices in our society but DEMAND the political elite don't just standby while the country burns. SHARE and READ OpEd:
Just in case you missed my op-ed in this week...
How does that saying go? If authoritarianism comes to America, it will come wrapped in the flag, bearing the cross... and justified in the pages of the New York Times.
31 years ago tomorrow -- June 4, 1989 -- Beijing did just that.
"These rioters, if not subdued, not only will destroy the livelihoods of law-abiding citizens but will also take more innocent lives. Many poor communities that still bear scars from past upheavals will be set back still further."—
Senator Cotton writes, "local law enforcement in some cities desperately needs backup,..." What data support this hypothesis? Have local law enforcement asked for federal help to back them up? Did the Senator consult them before penning his piece?
Our OBSESSION with our military must be curtailed or we WILL be at war with our own people. Thank you for affirming why we must cut military spending in half. #TomCottonIsACoward #Military
Cotton presses Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act and send in the military: "One thing above all else will restore order to our streets: an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers."
Hey, , did you fact-check this? Or is allowed to just say whatever he wants in your pages, true or not?
This editorial by is a terrible, terrible idea that is a total overreaction, would merely inflame divisions in the United States and do great damage to our military beyond the harm to the nation as a whole.
Not really sure why this op-ed by ⁦⁩ is generating such a meltdown. Over 50% of Americans actually support his position.
Lots of great lines in here that are like paeans to fascist imagery
A roughly 800 word op-ed by US now has a 325 words Editor's Note tacked on the front of it. A roughly 1000 word op-ed written by Sirajuddin Haqqani, the deputy leader of the Taliban, has no editor's note at all.
The opinion editor of the NY Times just lost his position for running the column below: We are living in very strange times. Tom Cotton: Send In the Military The resignation: James Bennet Resigns as NYTimes Opinion Editor
Here's NYT's story on the resignation, which will be updated: Here's the op-ed: NYT's 6/4 story, which said Cotton called for the government "to send the military to suppress protests," remains uncorrected.
On June 3rd, no less. I never want to hear from about China ever again.
Remember when wrote an opinion article about using the National Guard, that caused the editorial board to have a complete meltdown?
Many people have noted the odious content of Cotton’s piece in the ⁦⁩ but I’ve seen less focus on its intellectual laziness. How did the editors let him get away with using the cliched, meaningless phrases “radical chic” AND “chic salons”?
Why is giving platform to anyone calling for troops to be deployed on streets of New York? Let alone an Arkansas Republican?
I'm concerned that the editorial process that permitted these comments of Representative Ocasio-Cortez to be published unchallenged was rushed and flawed. You'd think the Times wouldn't lie about content literally published in its own pages.
Tom Cotton's proposal to send troops to protect states "from domestic violence" is a bad idea. By all means, rebut it. But if your position is that NYT shouldn't have published it, are you truly a liberal? The op-ed is interesting. See this, for example.
"We have concluded that the essay fell short of our standards and should not have been published..." Part of a long editors note atop Tom Cotton's "send in the troops" essay. So it says: Now we bring you something we should not have brought you... Ready?
Still up. Still no correction. If this was the product of a "rushed editorial process," the effort to address that sure is moving like molasses.
How did the NYTimes "endanger" its staffers by running this op-ed, given that those staffers are almost certainly part of the law-abiding "majority who seek to protest peacefully"?
First screenshot is from the NY Times on June 5 when they were trying to justify firing James Bennet over the Tom Cotton op-ed brouhaha. () The second is from a NY Times piece from August 7. () Think they'll issue a correction?
Opens by distinguishing between protesters and rioters, then cites broad public support for a crackdown on *checks notes" protesters. Right. Newspapers can publish the devil himself as far as I'm concerned, as long as editors actually do their job.
It must be incredibly humiliating to work at the New York Times
"Some elites have excused this orgy of violence in the spirit of radical chic, calling it an understandable response to the wrongful death of George Floyd. "
Wow. The Editor's Note that now appears before Tom Cotton's infamous op-ed is 325 words long. The piece itself is just over 800 words.
I am not making up "needlessly harsh." It's in the editor's note now prefacing 's op-ed. Also... "Send in the Troops" is "incendiary" but "Can We Call Trump a Killer?" is not?
<very Sulla voice> "In this Cotton there are many Trumps."
The NYT op-ed page will always make room for fascism.
Kudos to the NYT for running this.
The outrage over Tom Cotton's Op-Ed in the NYT proves that these people think the rioters and the protests are the same Cotton condemned mass rioting, NYT writers try to claim its anti-protest
Like, if you disagree with , explain why using words and arguments -- not threats of violence or temper tantrums. Here's his argument.
⁦🚨🚨🚨The voice of sanity just found it way into the pages of the ⁦⁩. Senator Tom Cotton:“Some elites have excused this orgy of violence in the spirit of radical chic...” Bravo ⁦⁩ (Identity-left is freaking out.)
Still glad I decided not to subscribe to the NYT.
The New York Times last night appended a lengthy Editors' Note to the top of the Cotton op-ed: "we have concluded that the essay fell short of our standards and should not have been published."
Honestly, I would have never even known the NYTimes published a Tom Cotton column if every single blue-check liberal on twitter didn’t tweet the article along with their feigned outrage
. I guess this ad is supposed to accompany Tom Cotton's editorial?
And is a bloodthirsty pyschopath. He also has an active imagination and the aspirations of a demagogue.
And if won't start the ball rolling, is in the wings, to set the dogs on us. 2/
“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.”
This is astonishing: what part of the right to peaceful assembly does he not understand? ⁦⁩ ⁦⁩ ⁦⁩ And shame on ⁦⁩ for giving space to this.
I just read Tom Cotton’s . I am not persuaded but it’s well-written, well-argued in response to anarchy. It’s logical. This is the “nut graf” with the op-ed’s main argument. Read the oped instead of having others tell you it isn’t “fit to print”
Great oped by Sen. Tom Cotton: Martial law in such situations is actually a *liberatory* force
what a fucking ghoul
I get what Cotton is trying to say here. But this is argument hardliners in Beijing made before Tiananmen and are making now re HK. Cotton missed opportunity to highlight Tiananmen anniversary and how what he is calling for wouldn’t lead to that.
Here’s the offending piece, though I’m not sure how long they’ll keep it up given that its very existence reinforces structures of patriarchal hegemony and cultural genocide (or whatever word salad the wokes are using these days)
⁩ you can fuck off. Why the hell did you print this idiocy ⁦⁩ ? The ideas stink even if you use $5 words like nihilist & feckless. Stay the hell out of NYC
I honestly don’t see what’s wrong with this opinion. We pay a fortune to have security forces that safeguard public order and prosperity. Those are clearly under assault, why don’t we employ those resources to prevent? Abuse happens where it is tolerated.
Cotton’s notion of public service is killing the folks who interfere with his narrow conception of America.
Tom Cotton is a terrible person
Cotton derides executives who, in renouncing his op-ed (), "prostrated themselves" before "a woke child mob from their own newsroom that apparently gets triggered if they're presented with any opinion contrary to their own."
I didn't read this in detail, but I trust what Senator Cotton is saying is that the military is ready to remove Trump by force, should he refuse to concede to Biden after losing on November 3rd? Thanks !
Remember when published Tom Cotton's op-ed, "Send In the Troops"? He called for the federal government to deploy military troops to cities and "restore order." Critics said the was legitimating & enabling authoritarianism. Look now.
"We amplify voices" - Including Sen. Tom "No Quarter" Cotton's vision of authoritarian governance:
The is committed to publishing a diversity of letters, but surely there is a line to be drawn? This is appalling.
This vile op-ed by looks a lot different after watching run rampant in Portland. It’s clear now that it was a PR trial balloon for pushing us closer to totalitarianism.
Very clear explanation of how he thinks
I don't agree with everything in the Tom Cotton piece but he's a U.S. senator and the position he's taking is well within the boundaries of mainstream American thought.