New York Times

New York Times Journalists Scared To Have an Op-Ed Page

Elite media institutions are noisily abandoning liberalism.

|

Last night, The New York Times, which has long maintained the pretentions of being the serious journalistic institution in the United States, published an article about how its own employees were scared—not just irritated, or "deeply ashamed," but terrified—that the publication in its pages of an op-ed from a sitting U.S. senator would threaten their very lives.

The purportedly dangerous piece, by the reliably authoritarian Sen. Tom Cotton (R–Ark.), called for President Donald Trump to send military personnel, using the Insurrection Act of 1807, to help put down the rioting that has sometimes broken out at demonstrations against abusing policing.

"His message undermines the journalistic work of our members, puts our Black staff members in danger, promotes hate, and is likely to encourage further violence," alleges the News Guild of New York, the union that represents Times staffers. "Invariably, invoking state violence disproportionately hurts Black and brown people. It also jeopardizes our journalists' ability to work in the field safely and effectively."

Like Defense Secretary Mark Esper, I do not think the president should invoke the Insurrection Act, now or for whatever other hare-brained schemes he may have. And like the army of journalism professors and lefty media critics busy mashing the "like" button on every new anti-Cotton tweet, I am no fan of the senator. My first piece about him, five years ago, was headlined "GOP's New Foreign Policy Hero Is a Surveillance-Loving Interventionist Nightmare."

But Tom Cotton is, sadly, a senator. And one of the most longstanding traditions among journals of national aspiration—the Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, The Atlantic—is publishing advocacy essays by people in power.

For instance, then-Rep. Charlie Rangel (D–N.Y.) wrote a 2002 New York Times op-ed headlined "Bring Back the Draft" (talk about "invoking state violence" in a way that "disproportionately hurts Black and brown people"!) without stirring this sort of protest. More recently, Michael Bloomberg took to the Gray Lady to advocate banning flavored vapes. Ask the family of Eric Garner how they feel about the racial distribution of stepped-up anti-nicotine enforcement in New York. One begins to suspect that the objection to Cotton is not a principled observation that state power is disproportionately wielded against the less fortunate.

This publishing flap, which in comparative importance is a sputtering match next to the hell-inferno of spring 2020, is nonetheless symbolic of a shift bearing more tectonic heft. Our liberal institutions, not unlike our conservative intellectuals, are noisily abandoning liberalism.

While the Trump-era trolls on the right gleefully transgress the bounds of discourse (particularly concerning race, gender, and sexuality) to provoke the sensitivities of the forces they call "the Cathedral," the solons of the institutional left expend a frightful amount of energy serving as intellectual bouncers—deciding, sometimes based on organization affiliation or even immutable characteristics, who is allowed to be in the club and dance on the "platform." It is an ever-escalating slap-fight between two sides who have given up on the idea of don't-categorize-me individualism.

The woke left's march through the institutions, from experimental liberal arts campuses to the most hallowed journalistic outlets, has been breathtaking in its speed and scope. It's a generational war, and the GenXers for whom this stuff doesn't come natural are learning that they have to become fluent in the new language or end up as pariahs in their own newsrooms. The country's top editors—Jeffrey Goldberg at The Atlantic, David Remnick at The New Yorker—discover during moments of staff revolt that their old-timey notions about broad public squares and multi-viewpoint conversations are no longer tolerable.

Outlets that once waved the flag of provocative viewpoint-diversity—Salon, The New Republic, Vice—have long since become barely distinguishable enforcers of a joyless orthodoxy. Just today, Vox's Zack Beauchamp engaged in ritual self-criticism after getting ripped by the kids for having tweeted, "I'm sorry but 'abolish the police' seems like a poorly thought out idea that's gotten popular with shocking speed."

As The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf observed/predicted, "There is ascendant pressure on journalists to reify positions that are held by a minority of the public and a supermajority of journalists. If it succeeds it will not advance social justice. It will make journalistic institutions that value social justice less influential." All this can be mortifying to watch.

For those editorial leaders who remain on the inside even after having committed the sin of expressing a Wrongthink or publishing a Deplorable, the price to pay is either a full public confession or a cowed explanation full of more caveats than the subway's full of rats. An example of the latter genre was published today by Times editorial page chief James Bennet. There is zero question, in reading Bennet's timid defense, which way the wind's blowing on Eighth Avenue. The bouncers may have let Cotton sneak under the velvet rope, but the next poseur won't be so lucky.

So do staffers at The New York Times truly believe, as their union alleges, that the publication of a single op-ed by one of 100 sitting U.S. senators represents "a clear threat to the health and safety of journalists"? If so, then that is yet another data point that the whole taking politics seriously not literally concept, with all the intellectual corruption that entails, is no longer and perhaps has never been the exclusive province of the Trumpite right.

Cotton, whose piece (should anyone actually care about such things) condemns the "wrongful death of George Floyd" and makes a point of distinguishing "peaceful, law-abiding protesters" from "looters" (though I'm dubious his pined-for military responders would), would, if barred from making his argument in The New York Times, have to resort to the hinterlands of, uh, C-SPAN, Fox News, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and just about any other newspaper in America. You would need a powerful microscope indeed to calibrate the marginal increase in likelihood that Trump would now take Cotton's advice just because it appeared in the paper he hates.

Given the startling erosion in meaning of such once-fixed concepts as "safety," and the twin degradation of evidentiary requirements when making sweeping accusations of racism, the likeliest explanation for the Cotton panic is that the frenzy at this point is feeding on itself.

Words have clear definitions, and grave accusations have clear need for verification, and yet you will not see a day go past when the Times and its journalists will act as if such standards do not exist. "They are parallel plagues ravaging America," the paper's lead paragraph of its lead article asserted Friday. "The coronavirus. And police killings of black men and women." That is not how language works.

New York Times Magazine correspondent and anti-Cotton ringleader Nikole Hannah-Jones (a "Pulitzer winner," the paper reminds us in its coverage about its own staff being mad at the Opinion section), stated as fact Tuesday that "Destroying property, which can be replaced, is not violence." As National Review's Michael Brendan Dougherty snarked, "Opeds are violence, acts of arson are opeds."

And fear, apparently, is everywhere. The most unintentionally hilarious sections of the paper's article about itself speak volumes about where elite journalistic institutions are heading. The first is writer Marc Tracy worrying out loud that readers of the country's leading intellectual light might be too stupid to understand newspaper traditions: "The distinction between opinion pieces and news articles is sometimes lost on readers, who may see an Op-Ed—promoted on the same home page—as just another Times article." Abolish all Op-Eds!

And the second comes from inside the house: "Three Times journalists, who declined to be identified by name, said they had informed their editors that sources told them they would no longer provide them with information because of the Op-Ed."

If this cramped cowardice is the future of journalism, then journalism has no future. Thankfully, readers and viewers and listeners who rightfully find all this to be crazy talk have a universe of other options.

Speaking of which, we talked about this and similar topics on a recent episode of The Fifth Column podcast with New York Times staffer Bari Weiss. Take a listen:

NEXT: Oral Dissents at the Supreme Court: They Can Still Happen

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Invariably, invoking state violence disproportionately hurts Black and brown people.

    What?

    1. Please, NYT, now follow that one up with an editorial demanding the right to bear arms be revoked, allowing the state to have a monopoly on violence.

      1. I Make Money At H0me.Let’s start work offered by Google!!Yes,this is definitely the most financially rewarding Job I’ve had . Last Monday I bought a great Lotus Elan after I been earning $9534 this-last/5 weeks and-a little over, $10k last month . . RFd I started this four months/ago and immediately started to bring home minimum $97 per/hr

        Heres what I do……..… Click Here

    2. Earth to be destroyed by asteroid tomorrow. People of color hardest hit.

      1. Hey! I sighted it first!

      2. Women of Color hardest hit.

      3. And trannys. Can’t forget trannys.

      4. You can earn more than you think. I have been working online on a site for like a few weeks and my last weekly payment was exactly 2509 dollars. Join now and start making real money working online.

        Check it out here……………Home Profit System

    3. It’s racism:they assume rioters will be black or brown, ergo stoping riots hurts POC most.

    4. Bari Weiss

      @bariweiss
      · 5h
      Replying to @bariweiss
      W/r/t Tom Cotton’s oped and the choice to run it: I agree with our critics that it’s a dodge to say “we want a totally open marketplace of ideas!” There are limits. Obviously. The question is: does his view fall outside those limits? Maybe the answer is yes.

      Bari Weiss

      @bariweiss
      If the answer is yes, it means that the view of more than half of Americans are unacceptable. And perhaps they are.

      1. unacceptable to whom?

        1. Good men.

      2. “more than half of Americans are unacceptable”

        1. It’s nice to see them finally come right out and say it

          1. Well, they’ve hated democracy all along. It gets In The Way, don’t you know.

    5. “His message undermines the journalistic work of our members”
      i.e.
      All the News that Fits The Narrative, and No News that Contradicts It

  2. And one of the most longstanding traditions

    ah NOW you care about tradition

    1. just gonna leave this here

      https://youtube.com/watch?v=0Gr-Spad47k

    2. I suppose when Jesse Walker writes about long-standing traditional conspiracy traditions get your goat too. That’s a real shame. You need to parse English a little better.

      1. I’m sorry pointing out your fuckboys’s failures makes you salty SQLSRY

        it’s always funny how you come after me when I kick your sockpuopets around

      2. It’s embarrassing how smart you seem to think you are. Did you even re-read your first sentence? Maybe you need to ‘parse English a little better’ fucking assclown.

        1. Unbelievable. I’m not sure what’s sadder — Tom cottons election to the senate or the NYT descent into propaganda tool. I cancelled my subscription to the times years ago; the only think I miss is the obits which they did better than anyone. Just last night, my 22-year-old told me that the only real news is on twitter. How the mighty have fallen.

      3. I suppose when Jesse Walker writes about long-standing traditional conspiracy traditions get your goat too. That’s a real shame. You need to parse English a little better</b.

        *cringes*

  3. Elite media institutions are noisily abandoning liberalism.

    They learned it from you.

    1. BS, this article clearly calls for more freedom of speech, and more courageous journalism. What do YOU want? Utter fascism? If Reason.com isn’t meeting your needs, PLEASE go elsewhere! Get your poop and scoop from Rash Limberger! And don’t be such a whiner and crybaby here! Ask for your money back; maybe Reason will give you your $00,000,000.00 back! And don’t let the door hit you on your ass, on your way out!

      1. “Get your poop”

        You’re the only one that eats shit around here.

        1. “BS”

          he can’t stop himself from thinking about it

        2. No, I’m told often that I once said I did too.

          1. Lulz. Whoopsie.

          2. Because you did SQLSRY

            Maybe you should just atop with the outed socks but then you’d have to answer for your racism and misogyny

            1. He will deny he fucked up again tomorrow.

      2. What a sad existence white knighting for Reason must be.

        1. You whining crybaby fascist trolls show up on a regular basis here, whining and crying that Reason.com isn’t as smart or eloquent or pretty, or their hair doesn’t look right, or they’re not “in” with the cool-fascist kids, who are cool-fascist in just the RIGHT way, like you, the cool kids, are. But in your smug arrogance, you don’t even EXPLAIN exactly WHY it is that you are the cool kids! It reminds me of that stupid bitch main female character in “Bridges of Madison County” who thought her farmer-husband was a slob, and her secret lover was SOOOO much more cool… Wait for it now… Because of the sexy ways in which he opened his beer cans, and lit his cigarettes!

          You utterly vapid, smug assholes won’t even bother to explain WHAT stupid illusions of superiority you are carrying, to prop your rotten, doddering, vapid asses up with!

          1. White knighting harder won’t make your exiatence any less pathetic

            “You whining crybaby fascist trolls show up on a regular basis here, whining and crying that Reason.com isn’t as smart or eloquent or pretty, or their hair doesn’t look right, or they’re not “in” with the cool-fascist kids, who are cool-fascist in just the RIGHT way, like you, the cool kids, are. ”

            Feel free to stop emoting and start quoting me. Or you could continue with the collectivization and rank paranoia of your pathetic existence.

          2. Soooo… Smug asshole Shit Brisket DOES refuse to specify, WHAT stupid illusions of superiority Shit Brisket carries, to prop Shit Brisket’s rotten, doddering, vapid ass up with!

            Duly noted! Carry on! But I wish you’d carry on elsewhere… Mature adults are trying to exchange meaningful ideas here.

            1. It’s interesting how defensive you’ve gotten about your white knighting and pathetic existence

              1. Gasbag Blowhard,
                Please listen!
                You don’t know,
                What you’re missing!
                Donald’s ass, don’t be kissin’!
                Trump won’t love you,
                He’ll push and shove you!
                He’ll take your vote,
                Then call you a goat!
                He’ll tax your money,
                Then steal your Honey!
                Your pussy, He will grab,
                Your back, He will stab!
                His-victims-routines, He’s iterating,
                Shit about YOU, He’ll be Twitterating!

              2. And… you still havent quoted me doing any of the thing that have upset you and caused you to white knight so pathetically.

                Can we conclude you have none?

                Waiting.

                1. Can’t quote you on jack shit other than your smug superiority. Others are all ickypoo, OK, we get that… But I can’t quote you on much of anything, because you won’t tell us what you would replace Reason.com’s ideas with!

                  You’re probably Tulpa to begin with, change your handle all the time to hide your mental vacuity…

                  1. So no quotes then? It was all in your pathetic white knighting paranoid head then?

                    1. Worthless assholes on the job, who sit on their fat asses all day, and do absolutely nothing, don’t make mistakes! And people who SAY nothing, can’t be corrected, for the nothing that they have said! Nothing from nothing leaves nothing! It does NOT mean that we should TREASURE your nothing! You nothing you!

                    2. ahahahah

                      HE CAUGHT YOU LYING AHAHAHAHAHAA

                    3. Still no quotes then?

                      You made accusations that I was a fascist troll.

                      Feel free to post quotes or admit you were wrong.

                    4. “And people who SAY nothing, can’t be corrected, for the nothing that they have said”

                      And yet your stupid ass had no problem attacking him and making claims that you admit you have no evidence for.

                      LOLOL HE GOT YOU MAD BECAUSE YOU KNOW YOU DO HAVE A PATHETIC EXISTENCE AHAHAHAH

                  2. “You’re probably Tulpa to begin with”

                    Lolololol you can’t find any quotes for me either bitch because I don’t decry reasons coverage you’re a fucking idiot for thinking that

                    “Can’t quote you on jack shit”

                    Ahahahah so you were lying when you said

                    “You whining crybaby fascist trolls show up on a regular basis here, whining and crying that Reason.com isn’t as smart or eloquent or pretty, or their hair doesn’t look right, or they’re not “in” with the cool-fascist kids, who are cool-fascist in just the RIGHT way, like you, the cool kids, are. ”

                    ahahahahahahah you got caught straight fucking lying shit eater hahahahaha

            2. Look, fucktard. Reason routinely argues for the big state. Remember when investigations are good because they can exonerate you? Remember when we had to save Obamacare because this country needs a national health policy? Remember when it was pointless to reform just Medicaid because the other entitlements would still bankrupt us? Remember when we were told we should pay for abortions because otherwise we would have to spend even more on Medicaid? Remember when Reason argued that it was unjust to exclude immigrants just because they were on welfare?

              Go do Goebbels somewhere else with your fascist gaslighting. The only fascists here are the progs like yourself.

              1. All Hail Der TrumpfenFuhrer, Full of Grace
                Savior of the human race!
                Never mind, us all, He’ll disgrace!
                Conservatards, above all, MUST save face!
                In glory, a glaze of Vaseline,
                Behold Stormy Daniels, our Queen!
                What a scene, what a scene!
                The Donald? NEVER so obscene!
                Now don’t you DARE throw a fit,
                It won’t matter, not even a bit,
                We mustn’t ever, EVER quit,
                We be saved, by The Trumptatorshit!

                1. Keep telling that big lie, Herr Goebbels.

                2. There’s an error in your programming. You should reboot.

                  1. A boot to the head would likely do more good.

      3. *I* don’t want it, Reason wants it. Is this really what long term exposure to Reason does to your brain?

        1. Smug asshole BS refuses to specify, what “it”, it wants! What kind of “it” do you want, BS? Also please be advised that Reason.com is DYING for persuasive writers like YOU! Please see below…

          Do you recall the awesome enchanter named “Tim”, in “Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail”? The one who could “summon fire without flint or tinder”? Well, you remind me of Tim… You are an enchanter who can summon persuasion without facts or logic!

          So I discussed your awesome talents with some dear personal friends on the Reason staff… Accordingly…

          Reason staff has asked me to convey the following message to you:

          Hi Fantastically Talented Author:

          Obviously, you are a silver-tongued orator, and you also know how to translate your spectacular talents to the written word! We at Reason have need for writers like you, who have near-magical persuasive powers, without having to write at great, tedious length, or resorting to boring facts and citations.

          At Reason, we pay above-market-band salaries to permanent staff, or above-market-band per-word-based fees to freelancers, at your choice. To both permanent staff, and to free-lancers, we provide excellent health, dental, and vision benefits. We also provide FREE unlimited access to nubile young groupies, although we do firmly stipulate that persuasion, not coercion, MUST be applied when taking advantage of said nubile young groupies.

          Please send your resume, and another sample of your writings, along with your salary or fee demands, to ReasonNeedsBrilliantlyPersuasiveWriters@Reason.com .

          Thank You! -Reason Staff

          1. It isn’t my problem that you can properly use pronouns. But it is further indication of the severity of your brain lesions.

            1. Hi BS BullShitter,

              I really, REALLY feel for ya, bro or bro-ess!

              To make up for my CLEARLY egregious offenses against you, I am willing to sing you a long-dong-song; a sing-along song:

              Cootchy-cootchy-cooo, Buckaroo!
              Don’t be sad and blue, Buckaroo!
              Sweet Little Thang, say “Goo-goo-gah-hah”;
              CAN ye, PLEASE, for Mama-Dadda-Ba-Ba?
              Put on a Happy-Baby smile, for a LITTLE while!
              Fend OFF my tears-of-the-Great-Crocodile!

              (If’n it ain’t enough, if ye will give me yer address… Did yer Mamma teach you that item yet? … Then I will PERSONALLY drive over to Your Happy House, and deliver a consolation warmed-up ba-ba to ya!)

              Now, I have NO “deep pockets” and I hate to bring this up, for fear of too-deeply “tapping” the pockets of Reason.com…

              But… IF by any chance, my generous offer is NOT enough to assuage your DEEPLY offended feelings… And maybe you are seriously contemplating some SERIOUSLY destructive vengeance, such as Holding Your Breath till such time as the Very World Itself implodes… Then I Truly Beseech Ye, don’t DO that! Not quite yet! First, send an email to Reasdon.com… I have written a draft for YE:

              To: SQRLSY_One_Has_Hurt_My_Deepest_Feelings@Reason.com

              Reason! SQRLSY One has HURT MEEE, Deeply! SQRLSY One has offered to sing ME some stupid, hurtful sing-along, ding-a-dong song, and to bring ME a warmed-up ba-ba, but it is NOT enough to make even the TINIEST dent in MY DEEPLY Hurt Feelings!

              Accordingly (with the writing-assistance of MY attorney), please be advised that the hurtful statements of SQRLSY One has caused ME to require, for MY “medically required” recovery:

              ’20 hours of self-esteem therapy

              ’32 hours of crystal-healing therapy

              ’34 hours of aromatherapy

              ’15 hours of therapy-therapy

              ’17 hours of Government-Almighty-Loves-MEEE-therapy

              ‘As-yet-to-be-determined XYZ hours of Repairing MY Hurt Baby Feelings Therapy!

              That comes up to around-about $137,538.27! So PAY UP, or else!

              Yours Truly,
              A Truly and Deeply Hurt, Long-Suffering VICTIM!!!

              1. Do you smell almonds right now? Weakness in any extremities?

              2. Lost your damn mind squirrel.

              3. Shut the fuck up, shiteater.

      4. If Reason.com isn’t meeting your needs, PLEASE go elsewhere!

        Nothing says Free Minds like get the fuck out.

        1. You expect us to welcome empty-headed trolls, with open arms? Make me, punk!

          Worthless assholes on the job, who sit on their fat asses all day, and do nothing, don’t make mistakes! And people who SAY nothing, can’t be corrected, for the nothing that they have said! It does NOT mean that we should TREASURE their nothing! You nothing you!

          1. LOL

            Awfully belligerent aren’t you? You’re sure taking the criticism of Reason personally. Must be over the target.

            1. “…criticism of Reason …”

              Because they are ickypoo? You haven’t even spelled out where they are wrong, and why, and what is better! You’re just an empty-headed troll! Has Tulpa been cloning itself, or what?

              1. You’ve gone full retard this evening.

                1. Retards tell each other “never go full SQRLSY”.

              2. I literally did upthread, moron.

                1. With a bunch of made-up bullshit, totally unfounded, with no links to prove your imaginary points.

                  BS is a fascist who adores itself in the mirror, wearing a NAZI uniform. Raw, naked, not-backed-up assertion, to match YOUR raw, naked, not-backed-up assertions! I am in the lead now, NAZI asshole!

                  1. So you’re saying it’s fit for the Morning Roundup? Maybe I will apply for those “above market rates.”

                    I’ll give you the authors in order for each of those. Try to keep up:

                    Shackford
                    Suderman
                    Suderman
                    Uterus
                    Shikha

                    The rest is left as an exercise for the reader. Unless you’re offering me adequate compensation. And you should know that my “fat ass that does nothing” is VERY well compensated.

                  2. And for the record you remain the only one here advocating for censorship and expulsion. Totes not fascist. It is a shame that word has been so abused that it can’t be used properly anymore.

                  3. with no links to prove your imaginary points

                    Didn’t stop you from clogging up the thread calling people fascist trolls.

                    1. with no links to prove your imaginary points… That’s what I said!

                      So ADD more to the clutter, then, fascist troll!

                      https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2020/05/28/george-floyd-minnesota-steve-almond Racism in America today… FYI!

                    2. with no links to prove your imaginary points

                      You want me to link to the thread you are currently clogging?

                      OK.

                      https://reason.com/2020/06/04/new-york-times-journalists-scared-to-have-an-op-ed-page/#comment-8287200

                      linked and proven. Now please go get the help you need.

      5. “PLEASE go elsewhere! ”

        You’re getting WrongThink in his bubble! You’re so mean!

      6. Squirrelly, you are not meeting anyone’s needs. Best you kill yourself immediately.

        1. Shitsy Shitler, drinking Shitsy Kool-Aid in a spiraling vortex of darkness, cannot or will not see the Light… It’s a VERY sad song! Kinda like this…

          He’s a real Kool-Aid Man,
          Sitting in his Kool-Aid Land,
          Playing with his Kool-Aid Gland,
          Has no thoughts that help the people,
          He wants to turn them all to sheeple!
          On the sheeple, his Master would feast,
          Master? A disaster! Just the nastiest Beast!
          Kool-Aid man, please listen,
          You don’t know, what you’re missin’,
          Kool-Aid man, better thoughts are at hand,
          The Beast, to LEAVE, you must COMMAND!

          A helpful book is to be found here: M. Scott Peck, Glimpses of the Devil
          https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1439167265/reasonmagazinea-20/

          Hey Shitsy Shitler…
          If EVERYONE who makes you look bad, by being smarter and better-looking than you, killed themselves, per your wishes, then there would be NO ONE left!
          Who would feed you? Who’s tits would you suck at, to make a living? WHO would change your perpetually-smelly DIAPERS?!!?
          You’d better come up with a better plan!

    1. Lessee…Red Wedding tweet? (Clicks link) Yep.

      One occasion of foot-in-mouth is no reason to bury the guy. If he made it a habit, like Dalmia doubling down on it being OK to use violence to get right-wing speakers to shut up at Berkeley, that would be different. But Welch hasn’t, AFAIK.

      Everybody screws up.

      1. Welch is a leftist bitch.

        That is all

    2. I’m sure he didn’t transgress the bounds of discourse.

  4. Jeepers H Cripes! Just don’t publish Tom Cotton’s editorial!

    Problem solved.

    1. That you think that says much about you.

      1. Should National Review be compelled to print editorials by AOC? There’s a billion ways that Cotton can get his stupid ideas seen by the world in this day and age. It’s far more valuable to me that NYT can finally shed off the last vestiges of being an objective journalistic organisation and finally be the free beautiful communist swan it’s always wanted to be. I’m more offended by the fact that Welch used the the present tense “abandoning” liberalism as if the process isn’t already over and done with.

        There’s no such thing as objectivity in journalism. It’s not possible. The sooner we start seeing everything through this lense, the better off we are.

        1. Compelled Speechless, that was awesome, thank you!!!

        2. AOC is certifiably insane.

          1. willing to bet it’s in the good way.

            1. lol

        3. “Should National Review be compelled to print editorials by AOC?”

          Who said anything about forcing anyone to do anything?

          Calm down Karen.

          1. I should have said “feel compelled”.

            1. I didn’t say anything about that either.

            2. I don’t want to step into this slapfight except to say “be compelled” doesn’t live on the same planet as “feel compelled”.

              1. Should National Review feel compelled to print editorials by AOC?

                I agree, the way I put it at first didn’t articulate my point properly.
                That’s much closer to my original meaning. There’s no edit button.

                1. The New York times wasnt compelled. They freely printed it. Then threw a hussy fit because their younger editors are crybabies who prefer group think. Bari Weiss has a whole thread about it. NYT looks ridiculous.

                  1. Disappointing.

                    Was hopeful she’d be hot with that name… but no. No she is not. At all.

                    Don’t know why I’d have thought that. Maybe because I knew a hot Jewess named Bari in college.

                    Anywho…

                2. In that context, yes National Review should feel compelled to print editorials by AOC. If not for journalistic integrity, than just because it will generate lots of clicks.

                  Also, I think National Review publishes things about AOC pretty often. I imagine they would print an editorial by AoC, it’s just that it’s never occurred to her to try and get one published there.

                  Maybe they wouldn’t print it, I really couldn’t say, but then again National Review isn’t at the same level as the New York Times either. They aren’t a nationally syndicated news paper, they are more akin to this Reason blog. NR doesn’t claim to be the paper of record, either. They are a conservative viewpoint outlet, and don’t really claim to be anything other than that.

                  If NYT would just come out and say ‘we’re a socialist/progressive outlet that pushes that viewpoint’ I think a lot fewer people would take beef with them. I wouldn’t, at least.

                  1. I don’t think National Review accepts editorials written in crayon.

                  2. BYODB nails what to me is the key point: “[NR] is a conservative viewpoint outlet, and don’t really claim to be anything other than that.”

                    Granted, we’re talking about Cotton being on the NYT editorial page, which operates separately from the news side of the paper. There’s a general expectation, though, that a paper won’t be solely one-sided on its editorial page if it’s striving to meet journalistic standards of objectivity in its news reporting.

                    For example, the Wall Street Journal has a decidedly conservative outlook on its Opinion page. It also has a few people farther to the left who regularly write for the Opinion page, and I’ve seen at least one piece written by Bernie Sanders on the WSJ Opinion page.

          2. NationalReview is an Opinion Journal.

            The NYT pretends it isn’t.

            And NR regularly publishes dissenting viewpoint essays

            1. And the entire raison d’etre of the Op-Ed Page, the page opposite the papers own editorials, is to give other views an airing. Otherwise, it’s just another Ed page. Like their news coverage.

              1. The Seattle times used to run 1 column a week from a mildly right of center writer, while running Paul krugman columns alone 3 times a week, among the many other liberal grievance pimps.

                They gave that up a few years ago. Now, even David brooks (lol) is apparently too far out on the right wing fringe for their delicate sensibilities.

        4. You know the more I think about your post, the more I’m forced to wonder why you replied to me with it. It doesn’ t have anyrhing to do with mine after all.

          My post simply says his post said much about him without any judgement one way or the other or any real comment on the actions here.

          So, why did you Rorschach the rest of that into existence?

          1. “My post simply says his post said much about him without any judgement one way or the other or any real comment on the actions here.”

            Are you a lawyer? Able to say 10,002,310 words w/o saying anything? Are you saying that you don’t necessarily agree or disagree?

            Are you trying to say that you are FOR stuff and stuff, except when you are NOT? Or are you AGAINST stuff and stuff, except if it is entirely TOO stuffy, in which case, you are FOR stuff and stuff? How stuffy IS your stuff, anyway?

            1. Shouldn’t you be searching for quotes?

            2. “My post simply says his post said much about him without any judgement one way or the other or any real comment on the actions here.”

              An empty-headed, vacuous, fence-straddling piece of garbage, FROM a piece of garbage, if I have ever seen one! How do you plead, empty-headed piece of garbage?

              1. Still no quotes then?

              2. Still no brains then? Still not going to deal with any actual facts or logic? And then you want people to try and refute the nothing that you say? Are you trying to say that you are FOR stuff and stuff, except when you are NOT? Or are you AGAINST stuff and stuff, except if it is entirely TOO stuffy, in which case, you are FOR stuff and stuff? How stuffy IS your stuff, anyway?

                A vacuum is pretty hard to refute, empty-headed one!

                1. Could you please make up your mind if I’m a fascist troll or a fence sitter?

                  It’ll help you look less pathetic.

              3. fence-straddling

                Wait, first you lost your mind because of a caricature of me and my position that you have in your head, but couldn’t support, and now because I called you pathetic you’re upset because I don’t espouse a position?

                Can you please make up your pathetic white knighting mind, am I a fascist troll or a fence sitter?

                No we can all see that you’re simply upset because I hurt your feelings.

                How sad your life must be.

                1. I detect that your mental vacuum is of a fascist nature, because you regard yourself to be morally, intellectually, or spiritually, or ethically, or in some other horseshit (but unspecified) nature, SUPERIOR to the mere mortals at Reason.com, who write elegant prose (with links and facts and logic) to argue in favor of individual liberty. Opponents of individual liberty are generally fascist. And that means YOU, empty-headed enemy of individual freedoms!

                  So PLEASE tell us… Are you for, or against, stuff and stuff?

                  1. Always bringing up shit.

                    1. For R Mac, “stuff and stuff” equates to “shit”… R Mac has been eating WAY too many “smart pills” from underneath the rabbit hutch, in an utterly futile attempt to raise its IQ!

                      Give it up, R Mac! Go find something useful to do!

                    2. Horseshit.

                  2. I see you attacking people for things they never said because they insulted you personally.

                    1. They never even SAID (or wrote) anything of note. And I (for one) am sick and tired up having to skip over endless potty-mouthed, empty-headed troll-shit, looking for thoughts (or facts) worth thinking about.

                    2. Facts worth thinking about… like facts about shit? Or Monty python? Or white knighting a website?

                    3. So you’re attacking them for nothing.

                      Literally.

                      Ponder that before you reply.

                    4. “So you’re attacking them for nothing.”

                      Yes, I am criticizing them for cluttering up an otherwise VERY useful web site, with their endless nothings! Just like YOU are doing! Do YOU like reading a whole bunch of nothing-burgers, by morally superior writers, who won’t tell us WHY they regard themselves as our moral superiors?

                    5. Yes, I am criticizing them for cluttering up an otherwise VERY useful web site,

                      You think fighting shitposting with shitposting gets you less shitposting?

                      No, we can see they hurt your feelings. That’s why. Now this is getting very sad.

                      Get help. Please.

                    6. “You think fighting shitposting with shitposting gets you less shitposting?”

                      Yes, I do, just as forest fire-fighters fight fire with fire, with fire-stops. Just as YOU obviously do, with YOUR shit-posting!

                      I am in favor of free speech for everyone! To bring it back to the topic here! If you shit-post empty-headedness, I will call you on it, using MY free speech! Now PLEASE stop shit-posting, unless you are actually going to announce your relevant STANCE on something! OTHER than, you are in favor of stuff and stuff, except when you are not!

                      Do YOU favor free speech? Or only for shit-posters like Tulpa and BS and Shit Brisket?

                    7. Yes, I do

                      Well right now you have 1/5th of the posts in this thread. No one else is close.

                      You are clogging up the thread.

                      just as forest fire-fighters fight fire with fire

                      Oh Jeez. Delusions of grandeur. You’re close to a break aren’t you?

                      Well, you won’t hear me because of your unmedicated state, but you are not the hero here Look around bud. There is no freshly cleaned virgin earth here. You’re not making firebreaks. The pile of your shitposts just keeps getting bigger.

                      Go. Get. Help.

                      Please.

                  3. So PLEASE tell us… Are you for, or against, stuff and stuff?

                    Is it common where ypu come from for people to viciously insult others then expect them to have a civil conversation?

                    I detect

                    Mmmm Schizophrenia. The strident defensiveness, paranoia, feelings of persecution, claims to supernatural powers, religiosity. I should have seen it. I hope you get the help you need.

                    1. What… Are you trying to say that you are FOR stuff and stuff, except when you are NOT? Or only in inverse proportions? Or are you AGAINST stuff and stuff, except if it is entirely TOO stuffy, in which case, you are FOR stuff and stuff? How stuffy IS your stuff, anyway?

                      You’ve not told us SQUAT yet on your position about stuff and stuff, yet! Inquiring minds want to KNOW, dammit!

                    2. And I dont intend to. I’m more concermed that you seek help.

                      You seem to think you’re the owner of this site when all I see you as is a person in need of help who is shitposting.

                    3. I’m more “concermed” that people like YOU stop shit-posting without saying a damned thing about where they stand on their stuff & stuff & shit & stuff! Empty-headed weasel! Among WAY TOO MANY empty-headed weasels!

                    4. No, youre upset because you had sockpuppets outed and got made fun of, and you have an uncontrolled mental illness.

                      You’re not a hero.

                      You have more shitposts than anyone by far.

                      Get help

          2. It wasn’t meant for you, it was meant to be a response to the main article. This comments system is not great.

            1. Fair enough

        5. Why stop there? How about some honesty at Reason for a change.

          1. How about some meaningful comments instead of endless BS, BullShitter?

            1. You mean like when you accused me of being a fascistic troll who complains about Reason then failed to provide a single shred of evidence?

              And then when challenged, you descended into paranoiac ranting?

              Like that you mean?

              1. You are a garbage-troll who ALWAYS attacks those who favor individual freedom, and defends fascist Trump-suckers. That is plain for all to see! AND you have multiple personality disorder, and you change your handle as often as Trump tells egotistical lies! AND-AND you never say anything of real substance anyway, with your 3-neuron brain! HOW does one refute a potty-mouthed vaccuum?

                1. So Brandybuck, you’ve outed another of your socks.

                  To be fair we have known it was you for some time SQLSRY.

                2. “HOW does one refute a potty-mouthed vaccuum”

                  How crazy would one have to be to try there Brandybuck?

                  1. When he feels compelled to refute you even though he admits you nevrr took a position, that usually means you’ve won and made it personal for him.

                  2. Oh, shit, we’re ALL busted now! ANYONE who does NOT fall into the Demonrat or Rethugglican parties and persuasions? They are ALL Brandybuck, ABC, SQRLSY One, etc! All of us are now clones!

                    Tulpa has fingered it all out!!! We’re all busted now! What will we DOOOO?!??! Individual freedom is now DEAD, for the rest of eternity!!! The barbarians have crashed the gates of Zirn!!!

                    1. Got you. Thanks for proving it.

                      Brandybuck.

                    2. ANYONE who does NOT fall into the Demonrat or Rethugglican parties and persuasions? They are ALL Brandybuck, ABC, SQRLSY One, etc! All of us are now clones!

                      You called everyone who doesn’t agree with you (and even people who don’t have any position on that) fascist trolls.

                    3. ” Individual freedom is now DEAD, for the rest of eternity!!!”
                      “Got you. Thanks for proving it.”

                      And Tulpa approves! Gotcha, Tulpa! Intelligent readers have realized, for a LONG time now, that Tulpa-Satan is allied with the Evil One, who wants to enslave us all, just as Tulpa is enslaved!

                      Thanks for confirming, enemy of human freedom!

                      But count me, for one, as one who will fight your evil visions until my death, and beyond! And you WILL go down in flames!

                    4. You’re not a hero.

                      You’re the worst shitposter in here by far.

                      Get help.

                    5. I love how upset you are that I outed another one of your sockpuppets shiteater!

                      Shit up the thread being upset about it more!!!

                    6. “D Pizzle
                      June.4.2020 at 8:30 pm
                      You’re not a hero.

                      You’re the worst shitposter in here by far.

                      Get help.”

                      I AM getting help… YOU are helping me shitpost! You have made NO relevant comments here about free speech! I am in favor of free speech!!! And YOU, shitposter?

                      Tulpa is the universe’s worst shitposter, if you have never noticed! Duh!

                    7. You have made NO relevant comments

                      “Please stop shitposting” is a relevant comment, you’ve been saying that about your comments to that effect all night. He is just doing what you are doing, and you’re doing way more of it.

                      Why do YOU get to ask others to stop shitposting but we can’t ask you to do the same?

                    8. Becuz he’s a firefighter!

                      AHAHAHAHAHAAHHAA

                      WHAT A RETARD LOLOLOLO

                      HE THINKS HE’S A FIREFIGHTER AHAAHAHAHAJJA

                      THIS IS BETTER THAN WHEN HE SAID HE EATS SHIT AND BABIES AHAHAHAJAA

                    9. “Why do YOU get to ask others to stop shitposting but we can’t ask you to do the same?”

                      Because I at least announce my stance on stuff, unlike empty-headed trolls here! I am in favor of free speech! How about YOU, empty-header troll shitposter?

                    10. Because I at least announce my stance on stuff,

                      Which has what to do with you shitposting?

                      You’re shitposting because you don’t like what others post? You have 1/5th of the posts in this thread because you think you are in charge of how people post?

                      That’s ridiculous. Grow up.

                    11. Because I at least announce my stance on stuff

                      Go read yesterday’s morning links, look for my name, and then come back and try saying that.

                      You’re wrong, you know it, and you’re spouting nonsense in defense of it.

                    12. **Because I at least announce my stance on stuff**

                      I really don’t care what your stance on anything is. You’re just a fucking troll flinging shit everywhere. That’s a stupid excuse.

                    13. D Pizzle
                      June.4.2020 at 8:55 pm
                      Because I at least announce my stance on stuff,

                      Which is what D Pizzle just did NOT do. Hey… D Pizzle… Are you in favor of free speech, or not? I am in favor of free speech! Are YOU in favor of anything instead of shitposting contests? Shitposters are a WASTE of time, and I am tired of the likes of you and BS and Shit Brisket and Mike Snot and an endless army of shitposters (many of them new) who show up here, and will NOT even tell us what they think, other than that they are morally superior!

                    14. No no no HE’S A FIREFIGHTER!!!

                      SETTING UP FIREBREAKS!!!

                      AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

                      WTF I MEAN COME ON AHAHAHAHAHAH

                      HE THINKS HE’S A FIREFIGHTER AHAHAHAHAJAJA

                    15. Mike Drop
                      June.4.2020 at 8:57 pm
                      Because I at least announce my stance on stuff

                      Go read yesterday’s morning links, look for my name, and then come back and try saying that.

                      You’re wrong, you know it, and you’re spouting nonsense in defense of it.

                      Mike Snot is TOO fucking damned lazy to even POST A LINK! Are you in favor of free speech, or not, Mike Snot? Or just empty-headed shitposting?! I am in favor of free speech! And YOU? Simple, plain question!

                    16. Alan Bradley
                      June.4.2020 at 9:01 pm
                      **Because I at least announce my stance on stuff**

                      I really don’t care what your stance on anything is. You’re just a fucking troll flinging shit everywhere. That’s a stupid excuse.

                      And another shitposter posts shit! I am in favor of free speech, and you, shitposter? And I really do NOT care, that you don’t care, other than, it is NOT a good way to live your life! You SHOULD give a shit about freedom for others, not just yourself, you know!

                      Every tyrant who has ever lived, has desired freedom… For themselves, that is!

                    17. AHAHAHAHHAHAHAAH

                      HE

                      THINKS

                      HE

                      IS

                      A

                      FIREFIGHTER

                      AHAHHAHAAHAHHAHAHA

                      AHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

                      HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

                    18. “Mike Snot is TOO fucking damned lazy to even POST A LINK!”

                      AHAHAHAHAHAHA

                      WHAT KIND OF FUCKING RETARD NEEDS A LINK TO A WEBSITE HE IS ALREADY ON

                      AHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAJ

                      HAAHAHAHAHAHAJJAAJ

                      YOU’RE AFRAID TO LOOK

                      AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

                      YOU KNOW HE POSTED TONS OF HIS OPINIONS AND YOU GOT CAUGHT LYING AGAIN

                      AHAHAAHAHAHAJAJJJA

                      “DO MY WORK FOR ME” SAYS THE FIREFIGHTER WHO WILL IGNORE IT AND KEEP SHITPOSTING HAHAHAHAHAHAHHJA

                      THE IDIOT NEEDS A LINK TO THE WEBSITE HE IS ON

                      RIGHT

                      NOW

                      AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAJ

                    19. **And I really do NOT care,**

                      Your giant butthurt wall of shitpost says otherwise troll.

                    20. “Shit up the thread being upset about it more!!!”

                      Tulpa! Famous quote from Tulpa!

                      Get a life, Tulpa! I am in favor of free speech… AND in favor of Tulpa getting a life!

                    21. THE SHITVEATER

                      THINKS HES A FIREFIGHTER

                      AHAHAHHAHHAHA

                      AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

                      AHAHAHAHAJAJAHAHA

                      AHAJAHAHAHAHAJAHA

                      AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAJ

                      LOOK AT HIM CRY

                      HAHAAHAJAHAHAHAJ

                      AHAHAHAHAHAJAHAH

                      AHAHAJAJAJAJAJAJAJJ

                    22. Alan Bradley repeatedly shitposts, without even telling us whether it is in favor of free speech, or not! Meet Alan Bradley, the one who wants to throw a monkey wrench into a decent web site, with endless shitposting! Hey, monkey wrencher… I am in favor of free speech, how about you? I am against empty-headed shitposting, how about you? Do you want to be the new Tulpa? Or are you already?

                    23. You didn’t acknowledge the links I gave you upthread.

                      Only a fool would fall for your deception of requesting links twice.

                      Besides. It was the morning roundup. You shouldn’t need anyone’s help to find it.

                    24. **I am against empty-headed shitposting**

                      Then you should probably stop doing it troll.

                    25. NO NO HE’S FIGHTING SHITPOSTING BY SHITPOSTING MORE

                      IT MAKES TOTAL SENSE TO THE

                      FIREFIGHTER

                      AHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAH

                      AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

                      YOU’LL POST THE WAY HE WANTS GOD DAMMIT

                      AHAHHAAHAHAHHHA

                      AHAHAHAHAHAHAJAJAJ
                      HE’S IN FAVOR OF FREE SPEECH AS LONG AS HE IS OK WITH IT

                      AHAHAJJAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAJAAJ

                      AHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

                      WHAT A FUCKING CLOWN AAAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

                    26. SQRLSY One
                      June.4.2020 at 8:06 pm
                      “You think fighting shitposting with shitposting gets you less shitposting?”

                      Yes, I do

                      SQRLSY One
                      June.4.2020 at 9:25 pm
                      Alan Bradley repeatedly shitposts, without even telling us whether it is in favor of free speech, or not! Meet Alan Bradley, the one who wants to throw a monkey wrench into a decent web site, with endless shitposting! Hey, monkey wrencher… I am in favor of free speech, how about you? I am against empty-headed shitposting,

                    27. ahahahah crushed him

                  3. Shitposters are those who shitpost, w/o even announcing their stance on ANY issues at hand!

                    I am in favor of free speech! So let it be written, so let it be done! Case closed! Shitposters and morons, please grow up!

                    1. So were you lying when you said you were in favor of shitposting, or when you said you weren’t?

                      lololol

                    2. “Dear Abby” is a personal friend of mine. She gets some VERY strange letters! For my amusement, she forwards some of them to me from time to time. Here is a relevant one:

                      Dear Abby, Dear Abby,
                      My life is a mess,
                      Even Bill Clinton won’t stain my dress,
                      I whinny seductively for the horses,
                      They tell me my picnic is short a few courses,
                      My real name is Mary Stack,
                      NO ONE wants my hairy crack!
                      On disability, I live all alone,
                      Spend desperate nights by the phone,
                      I found a man named Richard Decker,
                      But he won’t give me his hairy pecker!
                      Decker’s pecker is reserved for farm beasts,
                      I am beastly, yes! But my crack’s full of yeasts!

                      So Dear Abby, that’s just a poetic summary… You can read about the Love of my Life, Richard Decker, here:
                      https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/10/11/farmers-kept-refusing-let-him-have-sex-with-their-animals-so-he-sought-revenge-authorities-say/#comments-wrapper
                      Farmers kept refusing to let him have sex with their animals. So he sought revenge, authorities say.
                      Decker the hairy pecker told me a summary of his story as below:
                      Decker: “Can I have sex with your horse?”
                      Farmer: “Lemme go ask the horse.”
                      Pause…
                      Farmer: “My horse says ‘neigh’!”
                      And THAT was straight from the horse’s mouth! I’m not horsin’ around, here, no mare!

                      So Decker the hairy pecker told me that, apparently never even realizing just HOW DEEPLY it hurt me, that he was all interested in farm beasts, while totally ignoring MEEE!!

                      So I thought maybe I could at least liven up my lonely-heart social life, by refining my common interests that I share with Richard Decker… I, too, like to have sex with horses!

                      But Dear Abby, the horses ALL keep on saying “neigh” to my whinnying sexual advances!
                      Some tell me that my whinnying is too whiny… Abby, I don’t know how to fix it!

                      Dear Abby, please don’t tell me “get therapy”… I can’t afford it on my disability check!

                      Now, along with my crack full of yeasts… I am developing anorexia! Some are calling me a “quarter pounder with cheese”, but they are NOT interested at ALL, in eating me!!! They will NOT snack on my crack!

                      What will I DO, Dear Abby?!?!?

                      -Desperately Seeking Horses, Men, or ANYTHING, in Fort Worth,
                      Yours Truly,
                      Mary Stack / Tulpa / Mary’s Period / “.” / Satan

                    3. AHAHAHAHAHAHHA YOU KNOW YOU FUCKED UP YOU GOT SLAPPED SO HARD YOU RESORTED TO GIBBERISH AHAHAHAHAHA

                      WE MADE YOU CUT AND PASTE TROLL US YOU WEAK FUCK AHAAHAJAJAA

                      YOYU KNOW YOU LOST AHAHAHAHAHJA

                      WE CAN ALL SEE IT AHAHAAHAHA

                    4. You’re in favor of free speech… yet ask anyone you disagree with to leave this site. Hmmm…

                    5. JesseSPAZ is also INVITED to leave this site… Not commanded, I haven’t called the cops… JesseSPAZI is invited to leave, since he doesn’t like Reason.com writing. He can ask Reason.com for his WHOLE ENTIRE PRINCELY SUM OF $000,000.00 back, on his way out the door! At the VERY least, he can refrain from reading my comments, if he doesn’t like them!

                      I am in favor of free speech! How about JesseSPAZI?

                    6. So were you lying when you said you were in favor of shitposting, or when you said you weren’t?

                      lololol

        6. It would be even better if they ceased to exist, along with all the people that work there.

        7. The objectivity in journalism goes out with journalists demanding that certain kinds of speech or by certain persons, shouldn’t be published. Let’s add in their public demands of fealty (write that retraction or apologize publicly) to participate. Note, for a group of people who talk about equality before the law, they sure don’t treat people equally, and they put their own values above others.

          The way to see it is to use Dershowitz’s “shoe on the other foot” test. Treat them the way they treat others (corollary to the Golden Rule: assume they want to be treated the way they treat others, and treat them that way) and see how they react. You’ll find they’re not following the Golden Rule. They disrespect conservatives every day.

  5. Words have clear definitions,

    HAHAHAHAHA. That’s funny Mr. O’Brien.

  6. While the Trump-era trolls on the right gleefully transgress the bounds of discourse (particularly concerning race, gender, and sexuality) to provoke the sensitivities of the forces they call “the Cathedral,” the solons of the institutional left expend a frightful amount of energy serving as intellectual bouncers…

    The trolls on either side serve as valid a purpose as the sharpest satirist. (Not that I’m a utilitarian in these kinds of things. They can serve no purpose at all besides taking up space.)

    1. “gleefully transgress the bounds of discourse (particularly concerning race, gender, and sexuality)”

      Calling a male “male” transgresses the bounds of discourse regarding gender and sexuality if that male thinks he’s female, but calling that same male “female” doesn’t…

      And what the fuck are “the bounds of discourse” anyway?
      Looks like something someone says when they want to sound erudite but are really of very pedestrian intelligence

  7. The capitalization of “Black”, as above in “Black and brown people”, always annoys me. It’s similar to how the US Naval Institute decided to start capitalizing “Sailor”, I think from envy that “Marine” was standard practice. But usually it’s in relation to uncapitalized “white” where it looks so silly. Here they couldn’t even bring themselves to capitalize “brown”. Virtue signalling usually backfires, but they’ve one-upped themselves even sooner than usual here.

    1. also what’s the defining line between whether you’re black or brown?

      1. Wesley Snipes > Cuba Gooding Jr.

      2. Crayola corp.

    2. At least they didn’t resort to defining individuals as “bodies” as they are so fond of doing. I can’t even being to parse the vagaries of newspeak, but there is a clear pattern to the language used, and it has an insidious character.

      1. Individuals are just units of an abstract collective

  8. “I may not agree with what you say and I’ll defend to your death my right to stop you from saying it.”

  9. The have reasons to fear for their lives for publishing doubleplusungoodthink editorials – the Left will kill them.

  10. Download Latest Gospel Songs From Gospel Loaded
    https://gospelloaded.com/

  11. I for one was happy they published it. It’s Useful to know the thoughts of my fascist enemies.

    1. In worker’s paradise, publishing of opposing views will be tolerated to allow enemies of worker’s paradise to expose themselves. Once all are located and corrected by people’s firing squads of justice we can resume only publishing works that sing praises of enlightened, glorious worker’s paradise.

      1. You’re rather good at this

        1. It’s easy when you’re having fun! I’m going to be sad when he changes his name because I won’t let up.

    2. In a worker’s paradise AmSoc’s casual fascism is considered woke, but defenses of classical liberal values are “fascist”.

    3. What’s up Peanut?

      1. You know what’s worse than some uppity Black person challenging police authority? Handle thieves. That’s what’s worse.

        1. I knew you were ‘the Plug’ when you called the commentariat Peanuts as AmSoc. You’re a silly old bear aren’t you?

          1. I took literary license.

            Plug is a capitalist. I’m a champion of Nordic social democracy with a touch of Leninism. In most discussions not revolving around how you right-wingers have completely debased yourself with your support of Trump I believe we would disagree on more than we agree.

            With notable exceptions, the rest of you are mostly Trumpian fucking idiot GOP wankers who think it’s cool to call yourself “libertarian.”

            1. mkay

            2. You’re not getting this handle back btw.

              1. I’m not?

                1. Nope, cuz you’re OBL and this is getting tedious.

                  1. one more guess go

                    1. Oh God what have I done.

                    2. not god either one more try

            3. nigga we know it’s you “moneyshot” ahahahaahahaha

              you’re fucking stupid you can’t hide it so just stop insulting us

              1. We are all Buttplug.

                1. lololl nah bro i love that you took it just fucking with you

                  1. lolol

        2. Also I’m really sorry to hear about your mom.

          1. I did work her over in the back…

            oh you mean something else?

            1. “What’s up Peanuts, this is probably weird and I don’t really care if you hate me or not, I just have a few things to say. I know most of you don’t like me. Despise me probably. I’ve been not the nicest to some of you here and I want to apologize. I know it means nothing and some of you will probably hate me even more now, but I’ve realized some things recently that put life in perspective and I’m trying to make amends and come to terms with who I am.
              This last week both of my parents died. My father was in the hospital for over 2 weeks with a severe case of Covid, we were not allowed to visit him. They put him on a vent for the last week and he passed away late last Thursday. We only found out after calling the hospital to check on him. The assholes didn’t even call us to tell us.
              Then on Monday the most fucked up thing in my entire life, my mother’s apartment was broken into by a group of teens, she was robbed, gang raped at knifepoint and then stabbed over 70 times and shot in the head. These fucking losers spray painted ‘Black Lives Matter’ on her wall and then had the fucking balls to piss on her cat before throwing him out the 5th story window. No one, not even the fucking Orange Clown fucking deserves that.
              I thought life couldn’t get any worse. I feel like a fucking loser even telling you wingnuts this but fuck it I don’t even know how to process all of this and I don’t have anywhere else to say it. I have no friends, no money, no job, no anything. I keep hanging around here because I actually like some of you. I want to be liked and have friends here, but it makes me so fucking pissed being hated by everyone. that’s it. I hope some of you can forgive me for the past, yes I have a drug problem and I say stupid shit when I’m high. Right now is the lowest point of my life and I’m not asking for your sympathy but I at least want to try to have a normal conversation with people. If y’all still hate me I get it because at this point I hate me too.
              Thanks for being my best friends for life,

              Plug”

              Plug’s mom was killed.

              1. well i killed dat ass…

              2. Wow. This is a weird thread.

        3. “You know what’s worse than some uppity Black person challenging police authority? ”

          People who lie about paying bets.

        4. You what’s worse than handle thieves? Deadbeats who don’t pay their mortgages.

    4. Socialists and fascists… Eternal enemies because they’re ideologies are nearly indistinguishable

      1. It’s like the eternal struggle between the People’s Front of Judea and the Judean People’s Front.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WboggjN_G-4

  12. hide behind 1A for money then whine when the words are scary.

  13. All the news that’s print to fit.

    1. All the news that fits, we print.

      1. All the news no one throws a fit over.

        1. Almost news but mostly shit.

  14. Don’t know why the editors of these rags worry about what they think, with all the major outlets reducing staff let them go. Whenever I worry about losing my job to younger workers and then read articles about the way they think the company should change to suit them and not the other way around I am reassured that won’t happen anytime soon.

  15. Dear NYT writers:

    If you fear hearing what our leaders say–no matter how wrong or how despicable–go work for USA Today, People Magazine, or Parade.

    The NYT is supposed to be a cornerstone of the Fourth Estate. If you can’t report the horrible things, you’re in the wrong business. If an op-ed from a US Senator makes you say “we shouldn’t let people know about this” rather than “We’re lined up to write a thousand column-inches letting the world know why he’s wrong”… hand in your press pass, toss your Royal in the trash, and start applying for jobs in HR–because you’re not journalists.

  16. I wonder why NYT ran the piece. Was it an effort on their part to be “impartial” after all the heat the Biden hypocrisy brought on them?

    Not that I really care, I can’t read the NYT because they insist I log in before letting me read a word. No great loss there; one of the many reasons I read here and NR is the paywall is nonexistent or easily thwarted.

    1. ‘Looks like you love great journalism please subscribe to view more hard hitting and award winning journalism!’

      No, I’m here to see what retards think and the ratio.

  17. What we need is a section 230 for the news to protect them from the consequences of other people’s speech and the legions of trolls waiting to descend upon them.

  18. New York Times.

    Lol.

    I trust Jimmy’s Sponsored Content more than that crap.

  19. Does that crazy, racist Asian chick still work for them?

    1. Yep; but now she has been assigned to be a black homosexual.

  20. Are there any circumstances where U.S. military should be used to put down a domestic insurrection? I’m pretty certain everyone – liberal, conservative, fascist, commie, libertarian – can come up with at least one instance where it would be justified.

    1. During the anti-integrationist riots at Ole Miss in 1962 , when several black students (James Meredith et al.) were admitted, JFK sent in:
      “U.S. Army military police from the 503rd, 716th, and 720th Military Police Battalions—which had previously been readied for deployment under cover of the nuclear war Exercise Spade Fork—the 2nd Battle Group, 2nd Infantry Division, the 31st Helicopter Company, and the federalized Mississippi National Guard. United States Navy medical personnel (physicians and hospital corpsmen) attached to the U.S. Naval Hospital in Millington, Tennessee as well as 101st Airborne Division communications and medical personnel were also sent to the university. ”
      That’s not messing around.

  21. Unlike Twitter or Facebook, the NYT is not a private company that can pick and choose which speech it may allow to be heard. Nevertheless, they are Journalists™ and, as Chris Cuomo so eloquently explained, it is the job of a Journalist™ to decide what is important. If the Journalists™ at the NYT decide that what Tom Cotton says is not important, who am I to argue? Besides, I don’t even speak Parseltongue so who knows what that serpent was hissing and shaking his tail rattles about?

    1. Isn’t Tom Cotton a racist name anyway?

      1. Only if he practices Christianity and stands up to his white masters.

      2. in at least seven ways.

      3. To his nieces and nephews, yes.

  22. Fortunately, the next generation of young journalists who will take over won’t have this view that words are violence and can be suppressed and…oops, never mind.
    That was young journalists in Hong Kong not the US. I got the countries confused.

  23. Let’s be clear here:
    The left doesn’t cancel speech because they’re good people who just feel too strongly about injustice. It’s because they’re terrible, awful, evil people who are using injustice as an excuse to indulge their garbage natures.

    1. True; but what’s your point?

    2. It is more than they are just barely intelligent enough to understand how stupid their arguments are, but not intelligent enough to move past them. So they shut down others arguments.

  24. Come on, man! Freedom lovers come to protests to show off their guns and demand a haircut. They’re ok. Anyone else deserves the military’s bullets.

    1. Something we truly agree upon! In worker’s paradise, everyone deserves bullets. If not enough can be made due to poor centrally planned resource allocation, those who don’t get bullets can be given no food instead.

    2. Default on your latest mortgage yet?

      1. Default on your intellectual bankruptcy yet?

        1. In what currency is that denominated?

          1. Neurons. You used to have 3… Now you are in default, and have -34,567 neurons. Good luck!

            1. Oh fie! I am slain!

    3. Freedom lovers come to protests to show off their guns and demand a haircut. They’re ok.

      Yes, they are ok. They are exercising “ the right of the people peaceably to assemble”.

  25. “One of the most longstanding traditions among journals of national aspiration—the Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, The Atlantic—is publishing advocacy essays by people in power.”

    The New York Review of Books fired its editor because he published something that was insufficiently woke.

    “Ian Buruma, the editor of The New York Review of Books, left his position on Wednesday amid an uproar over the magazine’s publication of an essay by a disgraced Canadian radio broadcaster who had been accused of sexually assaulting women.

    “Ian Buruma is no longer the editor of The New York Review of Books,” Nicholas During, a publicist for the magazine, wrote in an email.

    The essay’s author, Jian Ghomeshi, who was acquitted of sexual assault charges in 2016, lamented his status as a pariah, “constantly competing with a villainous version of myself online.”

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/19/arts/ian-buruma-out-jian-ghomeshi.html

    It’s been this way for a long time.

    When historians look back at this era, they will see us the way we look back on the Red Scare era of the 1950s, when people were so terrified of being different that they created a conformist culture so stifling, only their horrible boomer offspring could have put it to rest. The fears of the writers at The New York Times, who fear violence or the destruction of their careers if they deviate from the formula, are probably legitimate. Blackballed screenwriters during the Red Scare probably a had a better chance of working in the 1950s than a disgraced journalist has today. Has any news writer been disgraced in the Trump era as unwoke only to come back bigger and stronger than ever? I can’t think of anyone.

    1. History lives in the cloud, Ken. Fahrenheit 192.168.1.1

    2. Hey look, being a communist and being hauled into HR because you were creeping on the new intern are really the same thing. Who knew?

      1. nah creepers didnt kill 100milly

  26. The premise of this article s eems to be that the responsibility of a serious newspaper is to those with power to to express their thoughts. This seems strange. How about to bring something useful, responsible, and interesting? Even you don’t seem to think the Sen. Cotton satisfies such criteria.

    1. No, the job of journalist is to provide information. That sometimes requires you to run opposing views. This is a good thing. Otherwise it isn’t journalism, rather it becomes propaganda.

    2. Also, understanding other points of view is interesting and useful. Unless you think other points of view be banned entirely. Also, airing multiple points of view and allowing the reader the ability to form their own opinions is responsible. Unless you think it is irresponsible to allow people to have differing points of view.

      1. “airing multiple points of view and allowing the reader the ability to form their own opinions is responsible.”
        Literally opposite of progressive belief

        “Unless you think it is irresponsible to allow people to have differing points of view.”
        Ah, there you got it

  27. The only thing that “undermines the journalistic work of [NYT] members” is the journalistic work of NYT members.

    Nobody who doesn’t get morning delivery of the New York Times considers NYT to BE “journalism,” and not even all of THOSE.

  28. Somebody teach Matt the difference between Liberal and Communist. It’s enough to make you ashamed to be an American with all Yew-Ess conservatives still using the Hitler-Herbert Hoover version of the meaning. It’s been 88 years for cryin’ out loud! Canadians, Aussies, Indians and Brits have no problem finding it in a dictionary. THEY are embarrassed by Chamberlain, but still understand English.

    1. Progressives like to label themselves as liberal, despite the total illiberalism of their preferred policies.

      1. I’ve often wondered what, exactly, they wish us all to “progress” towards.

        1. That bright future in which they run things. Harshly.

  29. Wow. Up until 8:19 the comments were a total shit storm of stupidity and personal insults. What a shame. Until the “Great Exodus”, there used to be great commentary here. Now it’s just a shitstorm of troll battles. Sigh. I miss the old days.

    1. Agreed. Any thread that doesn’t immediately devolve into sockpuppet accusations and boring grudge-posting is the rare exception nowadays. Too bad.
      Didn’t a lot of people move away from REASON when they let Dalmatia turn it into the premiere “Open Borders Is a Libertarian Position!” journal, for over a fucking year? That’s when I cancelled my subscription.

      1. Yes, those glibertarians have their own website. Unfortunately it is an echo chamber, albeit a funny one.

  30. the NYT has been pushing cultural marxism for decades…the chickens have come home to roost. And you know what won’t be that far behind….questions why there is so little diversity and I don’t mean far left woke views (that is the only view that will be allowed) but why are there so many Jews in the newsroom and not enough of this group or that. I hate to say this but the NYT newsroom pushed this garbage for decades and now…have fun..

    Oh and I”m still waiting for the NYT apology for covering up Stalin/Troysky killing millions in the Ukraine or calling Italian Americans who were lynched in New Orleans..”Thugs”

    1. And vacate or give back the Pulitzer won by Duranty for propagandistic lies!

  31. “The purportedly dangerous piece, by the reliably authoritarian Sen. Tom Cotton (R–Ark.), . . .”

    “But Tom Cotton is, sadly, a senator. ”

    Is there a reason that none of the progressive liberal are called “authoritarian”?

    1. It’s an instinctive CYA mechanism. There ARE still parties to be invited to, and the potential for future employment. Just gotta observe some of the new “rules of language” and handle this crazy “libertarian” stuff carefully.

  32. Ah, abandoning liberalism, a topic Reason is very familiar with.

  33. So when promoting Fascism and bashing liberal media collides Reason sides with Fascism?

    1. KMW at work. She purports to be an anarchist (which is bad enough) but promotes some of the most vile statist bs on these very pages.

  34. So now you’re a “troll” if you have normal views on race and sex that were completely uncontroversial 20 years ago. If you don’t call the tranny a woman, if you don’t think children should be put on experimental sex hormones and mutilated, if you’re against all sorts of sick social engineering related to this you are a “troll.” Ok then.

    Reason is a neocommunist rag at this point.

  35. In Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey abandoned the 3rd precinct as a peace offering to the rioters supposedly in hopes that they would get it out of their systems and calm down.

    Understand that the last Republican Mayor of Minneapolis was Richard Erdall in 1973 and that was only for 1 day to fill a vacancy. The last true Republican Mayor was Paul Peterson serving from 1957 to 1961.

    The current Minneapolis city council is comprised of Democrats and one Green Party member. The last Republican on the Minneapolis was Denny Schulstad, serving from 1976 to 1997.

    Minneapolis is a city completely governed by Democrats.

    Mayor Jacob Frey’s actions were naive at best and could be criminal mismanagement by an elected official. He probably should be recalled and kicked out of office.

    Peaceful protestors didn’t need the offering of allowing the destruction of the 3rd precinct. Looters are simply using the peaceful protesters as cover to commit crimes.

    Mayor Jacob Frey didn’t attempt to gain control of the situation and Governor Tim Walz was slow forcing Mayor Jacob Frey failure to act. As a consequence what should have been a local Minneapolis case of police brutality spilled out over the country.

    Trump used his Presidential bully pulpit to threaten federal action if the states didn’t gain control after several days of rioting and was increasing across the country. I agree with the use of the bully pulpit to threaten to take action, even though I do not advocate the actual use of force by federal troops.

    The death of George Floyd was a tragic example of police brutality. Derick Chavin should be tried found guilty and sent to prison. Likewise violent rioters and looters should also be tried found guilty and sent to prison.

    I see many parallels to George Orwells 1984 novel to today. I see some aspects in both the Democrat and Republican parties, but honestly I see more with the Democrat party and the media. The entire woke movement is nothing but Newspeak.

    The NY Times reporters should simply accuse Sen. Tom Cotton of Crimethink for having the audacity to express an opinion that differs from their official Newspeak.

    I have zero doubt that if the woke crowd had the power they would lock up people with dissenting opinions.

    1. I hear that the Bernie bros are fond of gulags.

  36. I’m glad to see you guys commenting on this and sticking up for Bari. She’s getting HAMMERED right now and I hate to see it.

  37. So sources are saying that they won’t give information because they don’t like the editorial policy. Basically they’re trying to control the policy of a major newspaper in return for information, while maintaining anonymity so they can’t be held responsible for that change. That doesn’t sound ethical to me, particularly if these sources have government power themselves. Consider how easy it would be to silence a news organisation if every time a source affected by a story said “Hey if you want the information better not raise that.”.

    1. Yes, and it’s the most direct statement that I’ve ever heard of what we’ve sort of already known and suspected.

      Namely, the interplay of journalists and their sources – particularly anonymous government sources – where there’s at least an implicit quid pro quo that information is provided in exchange for favorable coverage. My understanding had been that operated on an implicit level, however, in part because it was sort of insulting to journalistic ethics to make it a direct demand.

      Seriously, what self-respecting journalist even goes to the their editor and says this:

      “Three Times journalists, who declined to be identified by name, said they had informed their editors that sources told them they would no longer provide them with information because of the Op-Ed.”

      The right answer for any journalist with even a bit of ethics is to say (1) our publication doesn’t allow sources to control what we write and (2) in any case, I don’t have control over any article, editorial, or Op-Ed other than what I write myself.

  38. I was scared when the NYT upped the word war from accusing dissenters as merely microaggessors to white supremacists, most recently the entire US military. Of course words have consequences, as even the Times admits. How about a military coup inside the USA itself? You don’t think the left wing aristocrats in journalism are trying to ignite that, do you?? 🙂

    1. Corona is big threat of the century which effect physically, mentally and financially/ To over come these difficulties and make full use of this hostage period and make online earning.

      For more detail visit the given link…….► Home Profit System

  39. An example of the latter genre was published today by Times editorial page chief James Bennet. There is zero question, in reading Bennet’s timid defense, which way the wind’s blowing on Eighth Avenue. santa barbara electrician

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.