That would only be a valid argument if the New York Times posted anything, from anybody that sent it to them for it to be posted.
Since that is not the case and the NYT is selective on what it choses to post as “opinion pieces” one can only conclude that the opinion piece that they chose to post is aligned with their line of thinking or at least does not add up to an effective argument against it.
Considering how the NYT specifically chose a known pro-Israeli who is not a journalist to write actual news articles about the Israeli attack of Gaza, it’s extremelly hard to believe that when selecting which opinion pieces to publish in their newspaper they would refrain from trying to shape opinion.
This history of the opinion pieces is an interesting one. I just wanted to point those two facts out to anyone who may have missed that in the headline.
The Opinion section operates editorially independently from the rest of the newspaper. It is the section’s unique mission both to be the voice of The Times, and to challenge it. The Op-Ed pages were born, in part, because of the closing of New York’s top conservative newspaper, The New York Herald Tribune. They were created to be opposite the editorial pages — and not just physically.
“The purpose of the Op. Ed. page is neither to reinforce nor to counterbalance The Times’s own editorial position,” the introduction to the newly created opinion pages stated in 1970. “The objective is rather to afford greater opportunity for exploration of issues and presentation of new insights and new ideas by writers and thinkers who have no institutional connection with The Times and whose views will very frequently be completely divergent from our own.”
Just to highlight that last bit: The opinions are frequently chosen to be completely divergent from those held by the NYT staff.
You know what would keep us safer? If the most prominent news agency in the US actually did its job and did critical journalism instead of acting like RT news.
For example, more intelligence gathering power given to intelligence agencies would not have stopped the Iraq war. If anything, the more power given to these agencies, the more official they sound when they make boldfaced lies because people assume they most know something actually substantiative with all that intelligence capacity.
We would have just launched even faster into the Iraq war.
Waxman worked under Bush as a senior national security advisor. So the administration that believes in torture is advising us that government surveillance is fine and keeps you safe? Not sure I trust the source.
This is a guest opinion essay that many disagree with but find interesting. I don't think it represents NYT's views.
It’s an opinion article, so I don’t think NYT has committed any malpractice here. They published an op-ed from Pence last week about Trump not being harsh enough on abortion, but that absolutely does not mean they dislike abortion. There are people who wanted FISA renewed because they are in intelligence services and see the benefits directly. I’m also skeptical of mass surveillance laws, but I’m glad NYT posted this article so I could read an opinion from someone who disagrees, and I don’t think this establishes an opinion or stance on the part of NYT at all because it’s not what op-eds are for.
I’m also skeptical of mass surveillance laws, but I’m glad NYT posted this article so I could read an opinion from someone who disagrees, and I don’t think this establishes an opinion or stance on the part of NYT at all because it’s not what op-eds are for.
Op-ed pieces are about establishing the Overton Window, not establishing a news agencies position on anything. The fact that the NYT considers this part of a reasonable overton window is embarrassing and honestly revolting.
…right, so you’re asking for all media orgs to selectively choose stories in an attempt to make the Overton window (one of the most overused and abused concepts in online political discussion right now, to be frank) what you want. I’m not cool with that, regardless of the underlying validity of the stance you want to push. You can call it fighting fire with fire or whatever, but I call it losing every principle you have in the pursuit of protecting those same principles.
End of the day, I want the news I’m reading to tell me the opinions of the citizens I share space with. It doesn’t matter if I like it or not, it is out there and I need to know about it. The news is responsible for reporting on where the Overton window is, not where it should be.
Edit: I also wanted to add this. This conversation was on my mind as I was reading some of my news feed today and I saw the following articles posted by NYT just in the last few days, that are also discussing the left or their points of view.
I think it’s completely reasonable to share these views with everyone. We need to know what our fellow citizens are talking about and believing, even if it’s completely bonkers.
Here some excerpts for lazy people like me. This is how they try to justify not doing anything about a lack of privacy for US citizens.
Getting a FISA court order is bureaucratically cumbersome and would slow down investigations — especially fast-moving cybercases
Yeah sure, because we dont constantly keep seeing atrocities being commited even when the feds already had intel weeks, months or even years before anything happened.
probable cause needed for a warrant is rarely available early in an investigation. But that’s precisely when these queries are most useful
So we just abolish probable cause and the burden of proof step by step because it makes things slightly easier? Sounds like fascism to me.
Add comment