[rickyplouis]

Before reading this I had a feeling it was related to the James Bennet situation at the Times. I've been following the narratives unfolding around news rooms and I would offer this article as a counter narrative to the one being portrayed in this piece.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/business/media/new-york-t...

If you look at the James Bennet situation specifically, he willingly published a piece that he said could be dangerous. He tweeted the following

"We understand that many readers find Senator Cotton's argument painful, even dangerous. We believe that is one reason it requires public scrutiny and debate."

While this sounds like a noble undertaking of the advancement of public discourse, black journalists have publicly condemned this act because it will put their lives in danger. The problem is that Bennet and many other journalists believe it is ok to push dangerous, even racist narratives in pursuit of "objectivity". For many non-black journalists these debates are exciting and stimulating, but for black people these debates are validating toxic ideologies by giving them a platform to spread.

[DenisM]

> he willingly published a piece that he said could be dangerous.

That’s rich. No, he did not say that. He said some readers may find it dangerous. It does not mean he himself finds it dangerous.

[rickyplouis]

I agree, he does not believe it to be dangerous. That's kind of my point. He does not believe it to be dangerous, but many of his readers and even black journalists have acknowledged it is. At this point you either accept that black journalists are saying this piece is dangerous or you reject it, you can't pretend it to be indifferent.

[DenisM]

Oh dear. You have falsely ascribed words to the guy and did not even acknowledge it when I brought it to your attention.

To the contrary you doubled down: this time you are saying that the editor was indifferent to raised concerns, despite the fact the he actually did acknowledge them and communicated that in his opinion other considerations overrule. That’s not indifference, that’s disagreement.