One of journalism’s most laudable tenets is that citizens should be exposed to a broad marketplace of ideas, including well-reasoned opinions to which they might heatedly object. As New York Times opinion editor James Bennett declared yesterday morning, “It would undermine the integrity of (the paper) if we only published views that editors like me agree with, and it would betray what I think of as our fundamental purpose – not to tell you what to think, but to help you think for yourself.”
In principle, I totally agree. But as The Times itself finally admitted hours later, one guest column that it posted on Wednesday – a slab of incendiary dreck written by (or ghosted for) right-wing Senator Tom Cotton – did not meet the paper’s standards. Indeed, it was shared with the public after “a rushed editorial process.”
Many journalists whom I respect believe that The Times was right to publish Cotton’s call for U.S. military boots on the ground in American cities, that Cotton’s demand for “an overwhelming show of force…to do what’s necessary” to crush “left-wing radicals” is worthy of inclusion in the paper of record’s public square. Freedom of expression is sacrosanct, etcetera.
But no media outlet is required to uphold freedom of demagoguery, and to abet the pouring of gasoline on a tinderbox. No media outlet is obligated to give a politician a platform to advocate a violent crackdown of U.S. citizens who are protesting police violence against U.S. citizens. But the biggest problem with Cotton’s piece is not necessarily his despicable support for a military invasion of the homeland; in theory, I suppose, one could make reasoned arguments for bringing troops to the George Floyd protests. But Cotton didn’t do that. His piece was grounded in lies – lies that The Times now admits it failed to fact-check.
Cotton, a future Republican presidential candidate (a shrewder, smarter version of Trump) wrote that U.S. armed forces need to hit the streets, to subdue “cadres of left-wing radicals like antifa” who, in his view, are “infiltrating protest marches to exploit Floyd’s death for their own anarchic purposes.” But The Times, in its own news pages two days earlier, reported that there’s “little evidence” of any such infiltration and intent; the paper reported that conservatives, led by Trump, have been whipping up “untruths, conspiracy theories and other false information” in their efforts to discredit the largely peaceful protesters.
One of The Times’ reporters, Astead Herndon, made a great point on Twitter: If violence-stoking politicians like Cotton “want to make provocative arguments, let them withstand the questions and context of a news story, not (be) unvarnished and unchecked.” Indeed, a reporter could have asked Cotton to explain what he meant, last Monday, when he tweeted: “No quarter for insurrectionists, anarchists, rioters, and looters.” Was he not aware that “no quarter” is a military term for killing an enemy, and that it’s a war crime under international law? And isn’t it dangerously possible that a soldier trained for combat could lump peaceful protestors with “insurrectionists” and “anarchists”?
That Cotton tweet alone – exposing his incendiary true feelings – should have raised flags at The Times, which routinely rejects thousands of guest column submissions every year. At the very least, it should have signaled opinion editor James Bennett (by all accounts, a good guy) that Cotton’s piece required heightened scrutiny. But Bennett admitted last night that he never read it before it was posted.
Margaret Sullivan, the Washington Post’s in-house press critic, remarked last night, “Here’s a useful and common norm in a newsroom: ‘Hey, boss, you might want to take a look at this one before it runs.'”
Michelle Goldberg, a Times columnist, frames the dilemma that mainstream journalists are currently wrestling with: “It’s important to understand what the people around the president are thinking. But if they’re honest about what they’re thinking, it’s usually too disgusting to engage with. This creates a crisis for traditional understandings of how the so-called marketplace of ideas functions.” Her initial impulse was to support the posting of Cotton’s piece, because he’s “relevant” figure in Trump’s orbit. But she has subsequently “started to doubt my debating-club approach to the question of when to air proto-fascist opinions.”
I’ll simply state the obvious: The marketplace of ideas extends far beyond The New York Times. If his column had been rejected, he was free (and remains free) to find another platform to amplify his call for a military invasion of this country based on his broad smear of the protesters as violent thugs.
Eric Alterman, an author and veteran media observer, said it well last night on Facebook: “Originally, I supported allowing (Cotton’s) voice to be heard (in The Times); publishing is not an endorsement and the widest berth should be given to evidence-based arguments. But Cotton…did not require the imprimatur of the Times for his inflammatory arguments; arguments that could get innocent people killed if they succeed in his aims….Cotton’s (column) in this context was incitement, fueled by lies; there was no obligation to amplify or honor it.”
The Times (which I love, mostly) did enough damage in 2016 by hyping the fake Hillary email scandal and thus greasing the skids for Trump. The very least it can do in 2020 is become more journalistically vigilant about the next Trump.