Full width home advertisement

Post Page Advertisement [Top]

NY Times Attempts To Correct Their Own Op-Ed. Tom Cotton Gets Even, Mocks Their ‘Rushed Editorial Process’

NY Times Attempts To Correct Their Own Op-Ed. Tom Cotton Gets Even, Mocks Their ‘Rushed Editorial Process’
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) walks to a closed door Senate Intelligence Committee meeting, on March 8, 2018 in Washington, DC.

On Saturday, The New York Times attempted to correct the mistake made by its op-ed writer Maureen Dowd by writing that if former Vice President Joe Biden selected a woman as his running mate it would be the first Democratic male/female presidential ticket since Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro in 1984, ignoring Hillary Clinton’s presidential run in 2016.
The Times started by tweeting, “It’s hard to fathom, but it has been 36 years since a man chose to put a woman on the Democratic ticket with him, writes @Maureen Dowd. To use Geraldine Ferraro’s favorite expression, ‘Gimme a break.’”
The Times followed by admitting, “Correction: An earlier version of this column incorrectly said it had been 36 years since a man and a woman ran on a Democratic Party ticket. It has been that long since a man chose a woman to run as V.P. on the Democratic ticket. We’ve deleted a tweet that repeated the error.”
It was noted that the initial “correction” of the Times still didn’t get the story right:
Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR), whose June op-ed in the Times calling for federal intervention in the riots around the nation triggered a maelstrom in which the Times editorial page editor resigned and the Times even issued an apology for printing the op-ed, reacted with a pointed notice on Twitter, writing, “It seems like a rushed editorial process led to the publication of an Op-Ed that did not meet the New York Times’s standards.”
Cotton was mocking the Times’ note appended to his op-ed after the column elicited blowback. The Times wrote, “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.”
In that same note, The Times tried to explain their decision by stating, “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.”
But in a piece published on Friday, titled “Abolish the Police? Those Who Survived the Chaos in Seattle Aren’t So Sure,” the Times actually acknowledged that Antifa was indeed present in the city of Portland. The relevant paragraphs read like this:
Many of the business owners on Capitol Hill agreed: Much of the violence they saw and the intimidation of their patrons came from a group these business owners identified as antifa, which they distinguished from the Black Lives Matter movement. “The idea of taking up the Black movement and turning it into a white occupation, it’s white privilege in its finest definition,” Mr. Khan said. “And that’s what they did.”
Antifa, which stands for anti-fascist, is a radical, leaderless leftist political movement that uses armed, violent protest as a method to create what supporters say is a more just and equitable country. They have a strong presence in the Pacific Northwest, including the current protests in Portland.

No comments:

Post a comment

Bottom Ad [Post Page]