New York Times opinion editor resigns over 'Send in the Troops' op-ed
Essay written by Republican senator advocated for using U.S. troops to quell protests
The Associated Press · Posted: Jun 07, 2020 5:31 PM ET
James Bennet, editorial page editor of The New York Times, leaves federal court in New York in August 2017. (Larry Neumeister/The Associated Press)
The New York Times' editorial page editor resigned Sunday after
the newspaper disowned an opinion piece by U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton that
advocated using federal troops to quell unrest, and it was later
revealed he hadn't read the piece prior to publication.
James Bennet resigned and his deputy, James Dao, is being reassigned at the newspaper, the Times said Sunday.
The
fallout was swift after the Arkansas Republican's piece was posted
online late Wednesday. It caused a revolt among Times journalists, with
some saying it endangered black employees and calling in sick on
Thursday in protest.
Following
a review, the newspaper said Cotton's piece should not have been
published, at least not without substantial revisions.
Katie
Kingsbury, a Pulitzer Prize winner for editorial writing who joined the
Times from the Boston Globe in 2017, will oversee the opinion pages
through the November elections, the Times said.
I’ll probably get in trouble for this, but to not say something would be immoral. As a black woman, as a journalist, as an American, I am deeply ashamed that we ran this
Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger said in a statement that he was
grateful for changes Bennet had made to the paper's opinion pages,
including broadening the range of voices. Bennet, who was editor of The
Atlantic before taking over the Times' opinion pages in 2016, had
received some heat for adding new voices, including conservative
columnist Bret Stephens.
The publisher told a reporter from his
own newspaper that he and Bennet both "concluded that James would not be
able to lead the team through the next leg of change required."
It
was the second high-level journalism job lost because of mistakes made
in coverage of the nationwide protests about the treatment of blacks by
law enforcement. The top editor at the Philadelphia Inquirer, Stan
Wischnowski, resigned Saturday after uproar over a headline that said, Buildings Matter, Too.
Even
before Bennet's resignation and the paper rescinding its support for
Cotton's piece, Sulzberger had called for beefing up the opinion
section's fact-checking and suggesting that it was publishing too many
opinion pieces by outsiders.
The Times reported that Cotton's piece was edited by Adam
Rubenstein. But Dao, in a tweet on Saturday, revealed that he supervised
the acceptance and review of Cotton's piece and that blame should be
placed on the department's leadership and not Rubenstein.
I oversaw the acceptance and review of the Cotton Op-Ed. None of this is on @rubensteinadam. The fault here should be directed at the @nytopinion leadership team and not at an intrepid and highly competent junior staffer.
Cotton on Sunday tweeted an initial copy of a Times article
about Bennet's resignation, saying it was "false and offensive." He said
he advocated using military force as a backup, only if police are
overwhelmed, to stop riots — not against protesters.
Cotton
retweeted President Donald Trump, who said that "the State of Arkansas
is very proud of Tom. The New York Times is Fake News!"
He had no other comment, a spokesperson said.
Had not read article before posting
Bennet,
who had revealed in a meeting on Friday that he had not read Cotton's
piece before it was posted online, had defended it following the initial
protests, saying it was important to hear from all points of view.
But
the Times review criticized several aspects of Cotton's piece, starting
with the headline, "Send in the Troops", which the newspaper said in an
editor's note Saturday was "incendiary and should not have been used."
Cotton's
essay referred to "left-wing radicals like antifa infiltrating protest
marches to exploit" Floyd's death when, in fact, there has been little
evidence of antifa's involvement in the demonstrations. Cotton's
statement that police had borne the brunt of violence stemming from the
demonstrations should have been challenged, the newspaper said.
WATCH | Covering racism: Why Canadian media struggles to get it right
George
Floyd’s murder and the death of Regis Korchinski-Paquet in Toronto are
once again forcing journalists and editors across Canada to confront
their mistakes. Nil Köksal speaks to Black journalists about what
positive change would look like. 10:42
The newspaper said
that "given the life-and-death importance of the topic, the senator's
influential position and the gravity of the steps he advocates, the
essay should have undergone the highest level of scrutiny."
Bennet,
the brother of U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, a Colorado Democrat, was
declining requests for interviews, a Times spokesperson said. Sulzberger
was unavailable, she said.
Sulzberger also told the Times the
Cotton incident was "a significant breakdown in our editing processes,
not the first we've experienced in recent years." The opinion section
received criticism in 2019 for publishing an unsubstantiated allegation
against U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
George Reid What’s the point of opinion pieces if you only allow one opinion
Fred Thiolla
Reply to @George Reid: no questioning the Twitter mob
Joe MacLeod
Reply to @George Reid:
Not every option is valid
Dan Chanos
Reply to @George Reid:
have you read the oped in it's entirety and even if you did most newspapers do have standards under which opeds are published.
Darryl Braun
Reply to @Dan Chanos: His question is still valid.
Derek Pagnucci
Reply to @George Reid: and yet we’re constantly told that the nyt isn’t biased?
Li Mochi
Reply to @Joe MacLeod: Huh? You don't understand the meaning of the word "opinion"
Kelly Sullivan
Reply to @Li Mochi:
It's not difficult to think of opinions that should not be published.
Someonw may have the opinion that certain people are inherently better
than others (I'm workding this as carefully as I can -- read between the
lines). Another opinion may advocate violence.
David Amos
Reply to @George Reid: Good question
John
Sollows Excessive censoring of controversial points of view will play into Trump's hands.
Li Mochi
Reply to @John Sollows: Hope so
Michal Scur
Reply to @John
Sollows: using the military to suppress your own people demanding
institutional reform shouldnt be "controversial", it should be obsolete
and would result in the resignation of said politician in any other
civilized society. but this is america, where the republicans aim to
emulate autocrats and one party states like china. therefore it is
"controversial"
Simon_Flood
Reply to @Michal Scur: wow.
Perry Best
Reply to @Michal Scur: "using the military to suppress your own people demanding institutional reform"
using the military to suppress your own people vandalizing, looting maiming and killing your own people.
Elmer
Smith
Reply to @Michal
Scur: If politicians and police aren't doing their job against the
element who are being violent and committing crimes, then something
needs to be done. Or maybe those who read the NYTs think fai ries riding
unic orns down Fifth avenue will restore the peace?
Michal
Scur
Reply to @Perry Best:
the majority of the protests were peaceful, but anyways, if the police
cant handle crowd control, and have no deescalation tactics, and low
hiring standards, and think that coming to a protest kitted like theyre
moving into fallujah then they are incapable of doing their job. perhaps
a slew of serious reforms by the politicians and police unions would
have done more to quell the protests then violent reppression.
David Amos
Reply to @John Sollows: I agree
Scott McGregor
Reply to @Elmer
Smith: Calling the military against your own people is what dictators
do. Most of the top military brass are against it.
Jon Karl So instead of having opinion pieces, we are going to have one opinion throughout the paper.
Barry Bondar
Reply to @Jon Karl: ... and sufficiently washed to offend no one & to have no value ... :(
Li Mochi
Reply to @Jon Karl: Welcome to the USSR
Kelly Sullivan
Reply to @Jon Karl: Where does it say that?
David Amos
Reply to @Jon Karl: I know for a fact the NYT has always been that way and can easily prove it with Hard Copy
Scott McGregor
Reply to @Li Mochi: the USSR would agree that using the military against your own citizens would be a good move.
The nation must restore order. The military stands ready.
By Tom Cotton
Mr. Cotton, a Republican, is a United States senator from Arkansas.
U.S. Senator Tom Cotton calls for “an overwhelming show of force.”Credit...Pool photo by Andrew Harnik
Editors’ Note, June 5, 2020:
After
publication, this essay met strong criticism from many readers (and
many Times colleagues), prompting editors to review the piece and the
editing process. Based on that review, we have concluded that the essay
fell short of our standards and should not have been published.
The
basic arguments advanced by Senator Cotton — however objectionable
people may find them — represent a newsworthy part of the current
debate. But given the life-and-death importance of the topic, the
senator’s influential position and the gravity of the steps he
advocates, the essay should have undergone the highest level of
scrutiny. Instead, the editing process was rushed and flawed, and senior
editors were not sufficiently involved. While Senator Cotton and his
staff cooperated fully in our editing process, the Op-Ed should have
been subject to further substantial revisions — as is frequently the
case with such essays — or rejected.
For
example, the published piece presents as facts assertions about the
role of “cadres of left-wing radicals like antifa”; in fact, those
allegations have not been substantiated and have been widely questioned.
Editors should have sought further corroboration of those assertions,
or removed them from the piece. The assertion that police officers “bore
the brunt” of the violence is an overstatement that should have been
challenged. The essay also includes a reference to a “constitutional
duty” that was intended as a paraphrase; it should not have been
rendered as a quotation.
Beyond
those factual questions, the tone of the essay in places is needlessly
harsh and falls short of the thoughtful approach that advances useful
debate. Editors should have offered suggestions to address those
problems. The headline — which was written by The Times, not Senator
Cotton — was incendiary and should not have been used.
Finally,
we failed to offer appropriate additional context — either in the text
or the presentation — that could have helped readers place Senator
Cotton’s views within a larger framework of debate.
This week, rioters have plunged many American cities into anarchy, recalling the widespread violence of the 1960s.
New York City suffered the worst of the riots Monday night, as Mayor Bill de Blasio stood by
while Midtown Manhattan descended into lawlessness. Bands of looters
roved the streets, smashing and emptying hundreds of businesses. Some
even drove exotic cars; the riots were carnivals for the thrill-seeking rich as well as other criminal elements.
Outnumbered
police officers, encumbered by feckless politicians, bore the brunt of
the violence. In New York State, rioters ran over officers with cars on
at least three occasions. In Las Vegas, an officer is in “grave”
condition after being shot in the head by a rioter. In St. Louis, four police officers were shot
as they attempted to disperse a mob throwing bricks and dumping
gasoline; in a separate incident, a 77-year-old retired police captain
was shot to death as he tried to stop looters from ransacking a pawnshop. This is “somebody’s granddaddy,” a bystander screamed at the scene.
Some elites have excused this orgy of violence in the spirit of radical chic,
calling it an understandable response to the wrongful death of George
Floyd. 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. Many poor
communities that still bear scars from past upheavals will be set back still further.
One
thing above all else will restore order to our streets: an overwhelming
show of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers. But
local law enforcement in some cities desperately needs backup, while
delusional politicians in other cities refuse to do what’s necessary to
uphold the rule of
law
The White House, June 1.Credit...Jonathan Ernst/Reuters
The
pace of looting and disorder may fluctuate from night to night, but
it’s past time to support local law enforcement with federal authority.
Some governors have mobilized the National Guard, yet others refuse, and
in some cases the rioters still outnumber the police and Guard
combined. In these circumstances, the Insurrection Act authorizes the
president to employ the military “or any other means” in “cases of
insurrection, or obstruction to the laws.”
This
venerable law, nearly as old as our republic itself, doesn’t amount to
“martial law” or the end of democracy, as some excitable critics,
ignorant of both the law and our history, have comically suggested. In
fact, the federal government has a constitutional duty to the states to
“protect each of them from domestic violence.” Throughout our history,
presidents have exercised this authority on dozens of occasions
to protect law-abiding citizens from disorder. Nor does it violate the
Posse Comitatus Act, which constrains the military’s role in law
enforcement but expressly excepts statutes such as the Insurrection Act.
Image
After
thousands of whites rioted in Oxford, Miss., in 1962 to prevent
integration of the University of Mississippi, President John Kennedy
sent U.S. troops to quell the violence.Credit...Donald Uhrbrock/The LIFE Images Collection, via Getty Images
Image
Anti-integration
protesters at the University of Mississippi awaiting the arrival of the
first African-American student, James Meredith.Credit...Getty Images
For
instance, during the 1950s and 1960s, Presidents Dwight Eisenhower,
John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson called out the military to disperse mobs
that prevented school desegregation or threatened innocent lives and
property. This happened in my own state. Gov. Orval Faubus, a racist
Democrat, mobilized our National Guard in 1957 to obstruct desegregation
at Little Rock Central High School. President Eisenhower federalized
the Guard and called in the 101st Airborne in response. The failure to
do so, he said, “would be tantamount to acquiescence in anarchy.”
More
recently, President George H.W. Bush ordered the Army’s Seventh
Infantry and 1,500 Marines to protect Los Angeles during race riots in
1992. He acknowledged his disgust at Rodney King’s treatment — “what I
saw made me sick” — but he knew deadly rioting would only multiply the
victims, of all races and from all walks of life.
Not surprisingly, public opinion is on the side of law enforcement and law and order, not insurrectionists. According to a recent poll,
58 percent of registered voters, including nearly half of Democrats and
37 percent of African-Americans, would support cities’ calling in the
military to “address protests and demonstrations” that are in “response
to the death of George Floyd.” That opinion may not appear often in chic
salons, but widespread support for it is fact nonetheless.
The
American people aren’t blind to injustices in our society, but they
know that the most basic responsibility of government is to maintain
public order and safety. In normal times, local law enforcement can
uphold public order. But in rare moments, like ours today, more is
needed, even if many politicians prefer to wring their hands while the
country burns.
Tom Cotton (@sentomcotton) is a Republican senator from Arkansas
No comments:
Post a Comment