Excellent Reads

But at least the way I read it, Bennet is saying that the NYT has a duty to help both sides understand each other, and the way to do that would be by giving a voice to the right and centrists without necessarily endorsing any faction

I think that this is a superficially pleasing argument but actually quite dangerous. It ignores that the NYT is itself quite powerful. Anything printed in the NYT is instantly given credibility, so it's actually impossible for them to stay objective and not take sides. Taking an army out to quash protestors gets normalized when it appears in the NYT, which is a point for that side of the argument, but the NYT can't publish every side of every issue. There's not enough space on the whole internet for that. This is why we have that saying that I mentioned in the other comment, that journalists should afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted, or that journalists ought to speak truth to power. Since it's simply impractical to be truly neural, in the sense of publishing every side of every issue, a responsible journalist considers the power dynamics to decide which sides need airing.

The author of the OP argues that, because Cotton is already a very influential person, he ought to be published in the NYT, but I think that the exact opposite is true. Because Cotton is already an influential person, he has plenty of places that he can speak, and when the NYT platforms his view that powerful people like him should oppress those beneath them, they do a disservice to their society by implicitly endorsing that as something more worthy of publishing than the infinite other things that they could publish. For literally all of history, it's been easy to hear the opinions of those who wield violence to suppress dissent. Journalism is special only when it goes against power.

I kinda read it differently. I'm not saying you're wrong, since this is of course all pretty subjective. But at least the way I read it, Bennet is saying that the NYT has a duty to help both sides understand each other, and the way to do that would be by giving a voice to the right and centrists without necessarily endorsing any faction. I agree with it to some extent - as both sides have polarised and pulled away from each other, it's gotten hard to be a neutral viewpoint in any number of topics without being roundly condemned by both sides.

Yeah, I agree with all of this -- both that it is what Bennet is saying, and that it's true and important.

I just don't think it applies to the Times's or AG's behavior, in the real world, although Bennet is saying that it does. We need quadrants, I think:

1. We could refuse to weigh in on questions of truth, and instead just present "both sides"
2. We could present journalistic truth, what is objectively true, as best it can be detected by our professionals which sometimes looks "partisan" and upsets you if your side is not aligned with the truth
3. We could let the coverage be dominated by a bunch of oversensitive progressive whiners in the newsroom and on Twitter
4. We could let the coverage be dominated by a neoliberal hegemony which is pretty hostile to working people in the US and any brown people anywhere in the world
5. We could let a deeply deluded publisher dictate the coverage according to his own power-mad dicates, for which even #4 doesn't go far enough, and so align ourselves with the growing fascist movement in the country (in the absolutely stupid belief, apparently, that it won't then turn on us violently the instant it seizes power)

Yes I am editorializing a little bit. It's okay, I'm not a journalist. Also, it's still a quadrant; #5 just exists way, way off the bottom right-hand side of the square.

I think Bennet is saying that the Times was doing too much of #3 and is now getting back to its roots of #1, or should be. What I think is happening is that the times was doing #4 and is now starting to do #5, with a little disingenuous sprinkling of #1 to disguise the taste.

You'll notice that they don't feel any kind of need to present "both sides" of people's feelings on Biden's debate performance, or the war in Gaza (although I think the sheer humanitarian atrocity is so massive by now that they've been forced into admitting on some level that yes, a whole bunch of Palestinians many of them families and innocent children do seem to be starving and getting buried under rubble and maybe it's not an ideal outcome, although, of course, there's a lot of blame to go around on many different sides for why that is happening.)

That's a tough one. Dogwhistles, weasel words, doublespeak are all things to watch out for. He's condemning the NYT for changing the language Cotton used, but I'm not familiar enough with US politics to have an opinion if they changed the meaning or just polished the turd.

Personally, I wish the NYT would do stuff like this within the context of an interview. If you know someone is redefining words with new sinister meaning to try to justify their killing, I think you should call them out on it. Don't just let them pretend on the editorial page that they mean killing looters, certainly. But also, don't change their words and just kind of sneakily not address it (which I suspect is the result of splitting the difference between the reporter's desire to report the truth and AG's desire for the reporter to report the fascist newspeak version of it).

In a perfect world, I think you could do an interview where you say, I want to ask about about this "looters." You're clearly talking about shooting protestors, and pretending you are talking about shooting looters. What's up with that? And then in that context you give them a chance to speak and say their side. And if you're wrong, fair play, but in this case I think it is absurd to pretend that Trump and Cotton were telling the truth when they were talking about shooting looters and getting upset when people pointed out that they mean they want to shoot protestors.

The fairness doctrine? Eta: I'm aware it was for broadcast, but it used to be fairly standard, anyway, in print.