[grzm]

Thanks for taking the time to dig into the piece. A few additional points:

- This is an Op-Ed piece by Roger Cohen in the Opinion section. It's not an article. The NYT has editors of different political persuasions, perhaps not as diverse as some would prefer, but while they're all published in by the NYT, I'm sure they're allowed more latitude as opposed to representing the opinion of the Editorial Board. Of course, that does not justify misrepresenting known facts.

- Nowhere in the piece does the word "hate" appear, much less "hate Muslims", so quoting this is misleading. Cohen does say "The president does not like Muslims" and goes on to support this claim. (Whether or not you think this is justified of course is up to the reader.)

- Cohen also clarifies that the ban does not include all Muslims:

It is obvious now as he attempts to justify a planned suspension of visas for Syrians, Iranians, Iraqis and citizens of four other majority Muslim Middle Eastern and African countries, as well as a temporary ban on almost all refugees.

… “It’s not the Muslim ban,” Trump insisted to Muir. No. It’s just a ban on lots of Muslims.

You're very correct that it's important to maintain the nuance and accuracy of what is actually happening to prevent further polarization, to which we should hold the press, and each other.

[pfarnsworth]

You're correct, as I read it, my mind must have misremembered the quote. I'll add an edit noting what you said.

[masonic]

  This is an Op-Ed piece by Roger Cohen. It's not an article.

But Cohen is a Times employee; an editor, in fact. This is not the work of some random partisan think tank writer merely carried by the Times.

These two elements go well beyond the pale of any sense of journalism:

1) "... his cavalier trashing of the alliance and union that ushered the the Continent from its darkest hours..."

Um, what? When has he trashed (cavalierly or not) the USA-Britain alliance of WW2? Has the P.M. stated anything of the kind?

2) Cohen's piling-on of personal insults. He has no place diagnosing anyone with "narcissistic personality disorder", let alone claiming that Trump has a "lust for torture... and carnage".

[grzm]

I believe the references to World War II are due to the history of the phrase "America First", which goes back at least to the "America First Committee" which was pro-isolationist and against the US entering the war in Europe during WWII.

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_First_Committee

- https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/trump-a...

[mcphage]

> This is an Op-Ed piece by Roger Cohen. It's not an article. But Cohen is a Times employee; an editor, in fact.

Why, it's almost like that would make this piece... an editorial!

[grzm]

Yup. And it's expressing an opinion, as opposed to being a more objective article. As I said above, this doesn't excuse any misrepresentation of fact, but it does allow for more lenient application of perspective and interpretation. And the op-ed pieces do sometimes express partisan or political leanings. This shouldn't be a surprise, or even controversial.