[smacktoward]

> The Times can claim that a harsh tone and a small factual error in Senator Tom Cotton’s recent op-ed was the reason the entire paper had a meltdown, but the staffers who revolted initially claimed that Cotton’s argument for bringing the National Guard into cities put black lives in “danger.”

Cotton’s entire argument was that the military should be sent into the cities to crack protesters’ heads, which is something significantly more aggressive than “a harsh tone.”

If I were to take to the op-ed page of the Times with the argument that national stability requires that we send the military to crack the heads of everybody who writes for the National Review, I suspect they would waver somewhat in their commitment to unlimited free speech.

[eej71]

The op-ed draws a distinction between those who are peacefully protesting and those who were rioting and looting. Dropping that context seems unfair and misleading.

This paragraph - which is probably the source of the criticism - is clearly in the context of how to deal with rioters who are breaking the law by causing substantial damage.

"One thing above all else will restore order to our streets: an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers. But local law enforcement in some cities desperately needs backup, while delusional politicians in other cities refuse to do what’s necessary to uphold the rule of law."

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/opinion/tom-cotton-protes...

[SpicyLemonZest]

The problem is that a significant majority of Americans, including almost half of Democrats, agreed in polls at the time that the situation was so bad the military needed to be sent in. It's hard to seriously argue that representing such a mainstream view is so offensive the New York Times shouldn't do it.