Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Mission Accomplished!

Is it irresponsible to speculate? It is irresponsible not to.

Naturally gregarious and alpha

Han shot first.

Nevertheless, she persisted

I showered with Rahm and all I got was this shitty blog.

Shock troops for the Unitarian Jihad.

I thought we were promised Infrastructure Week

Screw the Judean People’s Front. Splitters.

Wetsuit optional.

Reality always wins in the end.

Also, too.

This Blog Goes to 11…

Militantly superior in their own minds…

This blog is Obama’s Katrina.

Peak wingnut was a lie.

Shallow, uninformed, and lacking identity.

We can agree to disagree, but I’m right.

Saul Alinsky is my co-pilot

Too inconsequential to be sued

The revolution will be supervised.

Dinky Hocker Shoots Smack!

And we’re all out of bubblegum.

Where tasty lettuce and good mustard aren’t elitist.

You are here: Home / Civil Rights / On the NY Times op-ed

On the NY Times op-ed

by | 78 Comments

This post is in: , , ,

When I am angry at a facet of the world where I have peculiar expertise,  I write op-eds.  And more often than not, they get published somewhere.  I might have to shop a piece to several places, but someone usually bites by the fourth or fifth pitch.  When I am not angry at the world and just want to inform the world about some aspect of public policy, I write academic manuscripts.  Those eventually get published after several rounds of rejection and revision.

I’ve submitted five op-eds to the New York Times since 2017.  Three have been published.

One of the rejections was an easy news judgement to reject; I was not saying anything too interesting nor relevant at that point in time.  The other rejection was just too esoteric.  Those rejections make sense.  There is limited real-estate on the New York Times op-ed page.  Editorial decisions had to be made on the dozens to hundreds of daily pitches that the editorial page team receives for relevance, newsworthiness, interest and quality of writing.  Good arguments on interesting topics will be rejected a dozen times before lunch.  That is the nature of editorial discretion for any publisher that has higher standards than an almost top-10,000 blog.

So when the editor of the New York Times defends publishing an op-ed that advocates for a military crackdown on people exercising their constitutional rights as advancing the debate, I call bullshit.

 


Bullshit.

There are arguments within the realm of acceptable discourse. There are arguments outside of that realm as well. NAMBLA’s president does not publish NY Times op-eds. That is a judgement call that this argument is not worthy of public debate.

The argument that the NY Times needs to publish the views of a Senator will shock the press and communication flacks on the Hill who are lucky if they can place one ghost written op-ed signed by their boss in a Congressional session. Plenty of Representatives and Senators will get their op-ed pitches turned down. And that is fine, it is editorial judgement.

This is bullshit.

Coincidentally, I received notification this evening that my small payment for my most recent op-ed is being processed.

Reader Interactions

78Comments

  1. 1.

    cain

    I was flabbergasted by the explanation that was given. It was complete utter bullshit. Everyone were just shocked that you would both sides fascism.

  2. 2.

    scav

    They really will do anything, cheerlead anything to get a little attention.  They’re probably speed dialing the president of NAMBLA at this very minute after your suggestion.

  4. 4.

    NotMax

    Boll weasels.

    //

  5. 5.

    debbie

    Hopefully, the certain, furious pushback will disabuse the NYT of their “philosophy” and at the same time show Cotton just how misguided he is. Interesting that we hear from Mattis and Cotton at almost the same time.

  6. 6.

    BBA

    They printed Qaddafi, I guess Cotton wasn’t that much more of a stretch.

    …never thought I’d long for the rational, humane policies of Qaddafi…

  7. 7.

    russell

    What should surprise me, but doesn’t, is all of the 2nd A hardliners who don’t notice that *this is exactly the thing they’ve been afraid of* for like, fifty years.

    The government, using the military, to suppress Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

    To be honest, I’m basically grateful for that, because the last thing we need right now is more Red Dawn types running around with guns.

    It’s just kind of.. ironic.

  8. 8.

    Gin & Tonic

    @debbie:

    Hopefully, the certain, furious pushback will disabuse the NYT

    What color is the sky in your world?

  9. 9.

    Chip Daniels

    I am a serious 60 year old professional reading a sober and thought provoking essay written by a scholarly expert, and the first thing I notice is his Twitter handle starts with bjdick and I snigger.

    I need to drink less. Or more.

  10. 10.

    David Anderson

    @Chip Daniels: You should both snicker and drinker more/less — BJDick was chosen for that reason — BalloonJuice Richard Mayhew is the PG rated explanation.  Your’s is the accurate and sophomoric reason for the handle.

  11. 11.

    Chip Daniels

    @russell:

    The Red Dawn types would rush out to greet the paratroopers as liberators and eagerly volunteer to be camp guards.

  12. 12.

    Brachiator

    I want to explain why we published the piece today by Senator Tom Cotton.

    James Bennet, the Times editorial page editor, is responsible for Bret Stephens becoming an op-ed contributor. Bennet has been around for a while. He was the editor-in-chief at The Atlantic, and helped it make money with junky articles. He’s an upper middle class mediocrity with good social connections.

  16. 16.

    Chip Daniels

    @David Anderson:

    So my immaturity was not in noticing the reference, but in thinking I was alone in noticing it.

    Sort of like the kid whose eyes light up when he first hears the name of the planet between Saturn and Neptune and thinks of a witty remark.

  17. 17.

    dmsilev

    They published the op-ed with comments turned off. They knew exactly how well it would be received, and went ahead and published it anyway. As one of the response to that thread asked, if Jeffrey Dahmen had pitched a column to the NYT, would they consider running it because it was important both the pro and con sides of the cannibalism debate be heard?

  19. 19.

    Barbara

    @cain: I don’t read any op-ed where they don’t permit comments. The only reason to publish would be to advertise that Cotton is a dangerous fascist.

  22. 22.

    Frankensteinbeck

    @russell:

    all of the 2nd A hardliners who don’t notice that *this is exactly the thing they’ve been afraid of* for like, fifty years.

    They’ve been afraid of a race war for fifty years.  They only worried about the government because they think the government is working for the Darkies.  With Trump that is not an issue and they gleefully welcome him murdering as many black protestors as possible, plus anyone on the side of those protestors.

  26. 26.

    glc

    @Gin & Tonic: I gave up on them in the 60s myself. Read some articles in my area of expertise and extrapolated from there. (However, I did read one good one, in spring 1963.)

    The funny thing is, whenever I’ve asked people who seem to like the Times whether they’d read anything in the paper in their own area of expertise, they’ve come out with some horror story.

  27. 27.

    azlib

    I agree it was a bullsh*t reason. I really do not understand the reasoning. Tom Cotton is a fascist and we need to call that out.

  32. 32.

    NotMax

    Completely OT.

    Dunno if it’s new policy or a one-off but saw today on the short after-movie content on TCM which lists the upcoming three titles (still no longer with audio accompaniment, which is greatly missed) that they’re not including start times.

    First title is labeled “Next.” Second labeled “After.” Third labeled “Later.”

    If it’s a new policy, why even bother with the list at all?

  34. 34.

    Ivan X

    Not to defend the NYT’s decision — I don’t — but, by the standards you’re putting forth here, David, I’d argue that it’s the author, being a US senator, not the content, that’s newsworthy. (Which is not the same thing as being worthwhile , but that’s not what sells newspapers). If, in fact, a Senator advocated for NAMBLA in an op-ed, you bet it would run.

  35. 35.

    The Moar You Know

    The funny thing is, whenever I’ve asked people who seem to like the Times whether they’d read anything in the paper in their own area of expertise, they’ve come out with some horror story.

    Gibson guitars.  I used to work in that industry, not for them specifically.  But it’s a small industry. All of their coverage of the various messes that Gibson has gotten itself into over the years has been, at best, been staggeringly lazy.

    You will never know what is happening in any company or industry if the only people you talk to are the CEOs of that industry.  And those are the only people the NYT ever talks to.

  38. 38.

    Kent

    Tom Cotton advocated war crimes against American Citizens.

    https://lawandcrime.com/george-floyd-death/republican-senator-called-for-no-quarter-military-response-to-looters-lawyers-note-thats-a-war-crime/

    Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) on Monday called for the U.S. military to give “no quarter” to those who engage in theft and property destruction amid demonstrations against police brutality and the Minneapolis Police Department’s alleged murder of George Floyd.

    Words have meaning. To give no quarter means you shoot surrendering troops rather than accept their surrender.  This is an obvious violation of military and international law and a war crime in any circumstance.  Or just plain outright murder.

    And the NYT chooses to give this person a podium.

  39. 39.

    Mike in NC

    Cotton is a likely GOP presidential candidate in 2024, maybe with unemployed Steve King as running mate. So instead of King Cotton, they’ll offer Cotton/King.

  40. 40.

    NotMax

    @Kent

    No quarter also the dictate given to Confederate soldiers who faced off against ‘colored’ troops of the Union. The term was not randomly selected by Cotton, he knows full well the baggage it carries.

  41. 41.

    cain

    @Barbara:

    I would say mission accomplish – but it gives comfort to our enemies and the forces that want to put the knee on all our necks – especially black men.

  44. 44.

    Feathers

    @NotMax: it could be because it is being put together from somebody’s home and not in the studio.
    on the NYT, it’s almost like they can’t be all good. There always has to be some part terrible and running off the rails. Like you wonder what fairy didn’t get invited to the christening and cursed them to always crave just a taste of the whip.
    On a practical note, I think it would help the NYT enormously if they followed the New Yorker’s example and had columnists only write six months out of the year, working on other projects for the other half of the year.

  46. 46.

    Duane

    The FNYT may have published Cotton’s editorial hoping that would get them in good with the next Secretary of Defense.

  47. 47.

    Kay

    @Kent:

    Oh, it’s insane. Take the “military” out of it for a moment. He’s calling on state actors to execute people without trial. Whether it’s military or police is almost beside the point. I mean, his adding “military” adds the slightest veneer of “debate” because then we can discuss posse comitus or whatever, but he’s calling for executions for property crimes. Uncharged! Unproven! No trial at all! Steal a tv? Execution. On the spot.

    This is what he wants state actors to use “overwhelming force” for:

     theft and property destruction 

    WTF? It’s BONKERS. It really doesn’t matter what uniform the state is wearing. It’s bonkers all by itself.

  50. 50.

    sgrAstar

    @glc:  disagree. I’m a physicist and I adore Dennis Overbye’s work. Occasionally he is able to articulate something about my own discipline that I’ve never thought of. His pieces on the premiere of Dr Atomic at the San Francisco Opera were incredible. I was there, and was enchanted by his pov.

     

    🌑

  51. 51.

    LongHairedWeirdo

    The argument that the NY Times needs to publish the views of a Senator will shock the press and communication flacks on the Hill who are lucky if they can place one ghost written op-ed signed by their boss in a Congressional session.

    More importantly, any piece by a politician should be weighed in the balance of “is this basically a campaign flyer? If so, they should pay standard ad rates”.

    In this case, they could add “is this propaganda?” and, not having read the article, I’m going to go *way* out on a limb and guess – just a guess, I could be wrong! – that the answer is “fuck yeah.”

  52. 52.

    Starfish

    Someone said that this fascist is the brother of our Democratic Senator here in Colorado, and we need to do better than this garbage.

  55. 55.

    David Anderson

    @Ivan X: if the standard is a Senator saying outrageous automatically gets published, then yes.  However that gives all editorial judgement to poo throwing monkeys.  That is a standard of sorts with horrendous incentives.

  66. 66.

    BBA

    Cotton isn’t aiming for SecDef. His sights are a bit higher – Duce Fuhrer Caudillo Leader of the American People.

  69. 69.

    Ivan X

    @David Anderson: I don’t think we’re in disagreement about the incentives. A certain number of lucky medium-to-high-profile poo throwing monkeys are going to be given editorial space they don’t deserve.

  70. 70.

    Duane

    @BBA: You’re  probably right. Cotton’s editorial is an odd way to go about it, though. For millions of people not familiar with him, that’s some kind of first impression.

  71. 71.

    Ruckus

    @Amir Khalid:

    Frank Burns was a shit doc in comparison to those around him but he saved a lot of lives. Tom Cotton has nothing in comparison to Frank Burns, other than they were both army. Hell Frank managed to become a major, something Tom couldn’t do, while over 90% of his class did. Now it’s true Frank was a fictional character but how close to real human is Tom?

  72. 72.

    Ruckus

    @cain:

    One might believe that someone with a job such as Brooks might, just fucking might, actually think rather than scribble the garbage that he normally does, I mean it’s not like he gets paid to write garbage on a regul….. Oh wait, I may be mistaking him for someone capable of actual thought, rather than surprise that his fingers can type while his brain is absent.

  75. 75.

    Captain C

    @cain: Next column by Brooks:  “Is Fascism and Summary Execution of Civilians by the Military Really Bad?  Or Is It a Moral Imperative to Save our Civilization?”

  76. 76.

    Jay

    @Kay:

    they already are executing people,…

    "Sean Monterrosa, 22, of San Francisco died after the shooting at around 12:30 a.m. Tuesday, but police did not tell the public the man was killed — or disclose the circumstances — until Wednesday." They killed him, and then tried to keep it quiet. https://t.co/CBkb04nNef— Shaker Samman (@ShakerSamman) June 4, 2020

    It’s amped up lately, which is why people are pissed off,

    Like half the moms in my baby carrier gossip group got tear gassed this weekend and now they’re educating each other on Fred Hampton and cointelpro. This moment does not feel like anything I’ve been alive for— Butt Praxis (@buttpraxis) June 4, 2020

  77. 77.

    different-church-lady

    I want to explain why we published the piece today by Senator Tom Cotton.

    “We ♥ fascists.

    “Hope that makes things more clear.”

Comments are closed.