I generally believe the NYT has a better newsroom than Wapo.
I know I'll get downvoted, but I see the conflation of "everyday" and "every day" everywhere and it's driving me bonkers.
ETA: Note, they are pronounced differently. "Everyday" has a single primary stress on the first syllable. "Every day" has two primary stresses, one on the first syllable and one on the last.
WP published various parts of the trove they deemed newsworthy, and ultimately won and accepted a Pulitzer for this.
Then the editorial board signed and published a statement that said some of what was released from the trove actually wasn't newsworthy and were reasonable and legal defense programs. The editorial board recommended that because of this Snowden should be charged. In the editorial itself they acknowledge that the illegal behavior that was discovered can't be used as a defense in court.
The WP was offered and accepted the responsibility to parse this trove and publish only what is newsworthy. They messed up and published a couple documents that weren't newsworthy. They never publish any kind of apology or correction for it, instead they indict their own source, and recommend he be charged for that!
There's an unprecedented level of malice and incompetence displayed here. Look at the revolt in the NYT newsroom about the Cotton op-ed, and compare to literally not a word said in opposition to the WP editorial (which was written and signed by the editorial board, unlike the Cotton op-ed). The WP is rotten throughout, and shouldn't be held in even the slightest regard as a newspaper when they use their position to destroy the protection of sources that journalists fought for so long to preserve.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/edward-snowden-doesn...
A reduced version of this question would be: if Hitler/Xi/Kim were to publish an opinion piece in NYT, should they reject it or should they publish it?
It was a piece calling for the government to murder protesters which the editor solicited and published without reading. Nor was any context or commentary provided indicating such.
(edit) You can also see, now, after the backlash, NYT agrees that it probably shouldn't have been published.
Based on that review, we have concluded that the essay fell short of our standards and should not have been published.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protes...
Now, you too are making things up. This is where “fake news” charges come from.
Here’s what it actually said:
Those excuses are built on a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters. A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants.
But the rioting has nothing to do with George Floyd, whose bereaved relatives have condemned violence. On the contrary, nihilist criminals are simply out for loot and the thrill of destruction, with cadres of left-wing radicals like antifa infiltrating protest marches to exploit Floyd’s death for their own anarchic purposes.
These rioters, if not subdued, not only will destroy the livelihoods of law-abiding citizens but will also take more innocent lives.
Sounds reasonable to me. This also proved correct. And I agree with the article.
It does constitute an opinion, but an incorrect one. Taking over a police station and a city hall in Seattle, for example, is pretty impressive - and it strikes violence at the heart of perceived violence.
No, Antifa is not a club or an organization. There is no membership. And there is no bouncer at the protests to make sure everyone is on the same page or of the same opinion - it is flat out inevitable that some people will be of poor opinion and behavior.
The Right's framing of the relatively small amount of violence is indicative of a police state. The reaction by police unions in the face of calls for punishing abusive cops is indicative of the violent arm of the state protecting its own absolute authority over the people.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/business/new-york-times-o...
The editor in question also resigned.
Not saying it justifies the original publication, but I appreciate the way it was handled.
While as a life-long military person I don't agree with his conclusions, you are mischaracterizing his article and I strongly suspect haven't read it.
Newspapers fairly regularly print opinion pieces that run contrary to the normal bias of the paper, but they usually refrain from printing ones which advocate violence directed towards the readers (and employees) of the paper.
> Those excuses are built on a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters. A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants.
And nowhere in the op-ed did he call for murdering or killing anyone.
The thing about the whole argument of, 'we only advocate cracking down on rioters and looters' is how is someone supposed to get that distinction right in the fog of a chaotic situation? Arrest people and have them face trial. Advocating violent and potentially lethal crackdowns on people in situations like this is what brutal autocracies do.
> You may say the average person doesn't interpret that phrase that way
Given that he used that phrase in a Tweet, and not in a military order, it's reasonable to assume he was speaking to "the average person" and using that phrase accordingly. And given that he has actually said that he was using the phrase colloquially, you're interpreting his words contrary to what he's clearly said.
And given that he enlisted in 2005, and not in 1905, is it even reasonable to assume that he knew about this ancient meaning of the phrase? Does the military still use this phrase?
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul...
Here in Seattle, it wasn't the rioters and looters who were attacked by police, it was mostly peaceful, non-violent protesters.
One might even imagine that the two are deliberately conflated.
Killing is what the military does.
Trump has declared that the protests are lead by terrorist "Antifa".
The police were already gassing, shooting and brutalizing protesters.
I don't know what other conclusion to draw about what "overwhelming force" and "dominating" would mean in this context besides murdering people.
It could mean that you do a show of force so strong that the opposing side gives up. In this case he was probably referring to putting so many policemen/national guard out there that they could disperse and detain all of the looters and rioters. This would likely prevent further looting and rioting as people would see that they would likely get caught.
> disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers
So any troublemakers would think twice about trying to hit an area to sew chaos (looting, rioting, setting property on fire, etc.)
Militaries are also trained for peacekeeping missions. It’s not all about trigger happy gun toters.
If it’s an all out rebellion that’s different. I don’t see a ruby ridge or Waco incident coming, but maybe you do.
In other words, I think your final paragraph is a false dilemma based on an unsupported assumption.
People actually killing protesters always, without fail, claim to be trying to stop "rioters and looters". This is not a phrase to be taken at face value, ever.
Also, this is so obvious, to so many parts of the political spectrum that pretending to not understand it is "telling on yourself" in modern parlance.
Basically it boils down to:
* it was a fairly dangerous opinion with fabrications that weren’t vetted by the editorial team
* it was disrespectful and dangerous to the safety of their employees of color. The safety of people should not be a partisan issue
* it compromised the reporting abilities of other arms of the NYT
Bullets don't fly on their own accord. Someone aims them.
It's a guiding principle of jurisprudence, not conversation. Don't be so pompous as to think the level of your discourse rises to that of a court proceeding.
Now you can.
They did publish a chunk of Mein Kampf back in 1941, only adding a single small paragraph of context.