I am not American and don't live there but have American friends. Most of them anecdotally were happy about the op-ed you mention - they probably aren't members of your political tribe. But then they don't subscribe to the NYT anyway. My point is that the GP is right, this is survival. They tried to be neutral by publishing an op-ed the other side probably liked. Didn't work and therefore it pushes them more into one camp to survive. Just a guess based on anecdotal information.

> 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.

It seems fair.

If a group of supposedly "peaceful, law-abiding protesters" is going to make the revolting moral equivalence of corrupt cops to properly behaved cops, they shouldn't complain when they themselves are considered equivalent to the worst among their group.

It wasn't just property damage, and insurance isn't magic.

David Dorn, a black ex-police officer, and 14 other people died due to the unhandled looting.

If they would have sent National Guard in to protect storefronts those deaths would have never happened.

Those peaceful protesters deserve protection from the looters as well btw.

The peaceful protesters explicitely don't want that. You may disagree with them, but don't pretend it is for them.

I do disagree, and it is for their safety, many of them are getting hurt.

I don't care if they want it or not, if they don't, they don't know what's good for them.

The problem here is that the protestors are against what they perceive as excessive use of force. Sending in the national guard would escalate the situation further. One of the reasons these protests persist is that they elicit from the police much of the behavior they detest. The protests are self-fueling.

Letting them do whatever they want is not a valid choice, no matter how they feel.

If Taibbi is reporting accurately, that's not what he said, and the NYT even had to issue a correction to clarify that he didn't say that.

They reported at the beginning of May that subscriptions are at a high:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/06/business/media/new-york-t...

Scanning the google results for “nyt subscribers” I see them reporting 5 million in Feb and 4.7 million in Aug 2019, so it looks to me like subscriptions have been accelerating in recent months.

Can you please share the information you have regarding mass subscription cancellations due to this op-ed? I would like to see it.

The op-ed was published on June 3rd.

I’m asking if you could please share links to the information you saw about about the widespread subscription cancellations that you referred to.

The other half cancelled their subscription because they fired the editor, so they lose-lose really.

They fired the editor because he admitted he himself “did not read the piece”.

Seems like a fireable offense to print something you didn’t read, when it is quite literally your job to.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/busi...

I bet he didn't read the piece, if he had he would have known it would have pissed off their base.

Notice how they didn't say HOW the OPINION piece didn't meet their standard.

The newsroom revolted against the editor that published the "Send in the troops" article and got him fired. So for this anecdote it was the right strategy, it just didn't happen soon enough.

From the same organisation that published an op-ed from the Taliban.

The whole thing is absolutely bizarre

Individually, each entity composing the group we call "press", may find itself in geopardy.

But as a whole, it's working.

They are just copying each others, because they can see what works and what doesn't. But because everything has a context, and luck is involved, they will be many dying anyway.