Opinion journalism is often provocative and sometimes puerile. It can result in nodding agreement or furious disagreement. The best of opinion journalism seeks to persuade or present an argument. In contrast, other, more lazy opinion journalism is rife with partisan blathering meant to serve a particular audience craving confirmation bias.
There is often value in reading the opinion with which one disagrees. Assuming the piece is well written, it could serve to provide a person with more information to sharpen their arguments in opposition. It may just provide food for thought. Whatever it is or whatever the subject, it is ultimately words on a page. People will express sentiments and ideas in opinion pieces that make others uncomfortable.
The New York Times made a colossal error when it chose to accept the resignation of James Bennet, its editorial page editor. It came as the result of the reaction to Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton’s op-ed entitled, “Send In The Troops.”
In the piece, Cotton said it was time for President Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act and utilize the military to quell riots and looting in states where governors refused to mobilize the National Guard. Cotton didn’t write anything earth-shattering, recalling when presidents used the authority in the past. Cotton cited a poll showing 58% of Americans supported the idea, including a plurality of Democrats.
Judging by the reaction from staffers at the New York Times, one would think Cotton advocated the creation of a modern-day Schutzstaffel to let loose on the public and rein in not only those engaging in criminal activity but general protesting, as well. Staff members began sending tweets with an utterly preposterous notion that Cotton’s op-ed put the lives of black New York Times staffers “in danger.”
Senseless as it was, it got the attention of upper management and the publisher. It didn’t take them long to assuage the feelings of the staffers who complained. The New York Times published Cotton on Wednesday, added a long editor’s note to the piece on Friday, and Bennet resigned on Sunday.
It’s a contemptible moment in journalism because New York Times Executive Editor Dean Baquet chose to cater to the feelings of the staff as if they were persnickety middle school kids instead of adult journalists with a job to do. The editor’s note said Cotton’s essay “fell short of their standards” and should not have been published, which came across as a convenient excuse instead of an explanation.
The entire episode was eerily reminiscent of the Atlantic debacle two years ago when the editor of the magazine, Jeffrey Goldberg, fired Kevin Williamson three days after his first column appeared. While much of the story focused on the asinine accusation made against Williamson that he “wanted to hang women,” Williamson also referenced the Atlantic staff, primarily the younger and more liberal staffers getting up in arms over his hiring. Goldberg’s retreat and eventual firing of Williamson were that of a follower, not a leader.
The New York Times furthered it’s malfeasance when the new editorial page editor, Katie Kingsbury, sent a note to the opinion staff saying, if “any piece of Opinion journalism — including headlines or social posts or photos or you name it — that gives you the slightest pause, please call or text me immediately.”
After what went down the last week, does anyone believe for a moment the calls or texts will begin and end with opinion staff? It’s an invitation for the team at the New York Times to act as the de facto editor, giving them the power of Commodus to extend a thumbs-up or down on opinion essays they think might do “harm.”
People complain about the Washington Post opinion pages, giving the title of “conservative” to people like Jen Rubin and Max Boot. I’m not concerned with the duo’s lack of conservative bonafides as I am with the mundanity of their work. I have similar issues with Bret Stephens of the New York Times. They’re all intelligent people who have decided to phone in their columns, seemingly constructing them from a template. I’m much more interested in what Ross Douthat has to say. I don’t always agree with Dan Henninger and Holman Jenkins of the Wall Street Journal, who present their points of view, which sometimes align with Trump, in a persuasive manner that makes it interesting to read.
The more significant point is that newspapers should not be afraid to publish, bold, and yes, sometimes controversial opinions. Cotton’s essay was controversial. It advocated a policy proposal that many people might have been willing to extend to George W. Bush or Barack Obama but have a far more difficult time imagining in the hands of Trump. That said, it remains nothing more than an opinion and an idea. It put no person in danger.
The New York Times, with its decision to issue a mea culpa and push out the editorial page editor, made a poor decision. Acquiescing to loud, sophomoric demands did a lot more harm than good to the “paper of record.”
