[theplague42]

Was the editor fired because of a "dissenting opinion" or because Cotton was effectively calling for martial law against protestors?

The NYTimes op-ed section has plenty of dissenting opinions and/or conservatives... just not ones calling for violence.

[flyinglizard]

There was absolutely nothing outrageous in Cotton's op-ed. Mind, the same National Guard that Cotton was calling for was now sent to the Capitol, and I don't think NYT was up in arms.

That aside, he's a public representative of the highest order (a Senator). He needs to be heard whether we like it or not. I've not seen any public representative being censored in the country I'm from, that including opinion pieces from extremist parliament members on both sides. This is clearly a US thing.

[d1zzy]

> That aside, he's a public representative of the highest order (a Senator). He needs to be heard whether we like it or not.

And to achieve that you're going to force businesses to host content that hurts their bottom line (the loss of income from the advertisers that will pull out from working with a company that hosts such content).

> This is clearly a US thing.

In the country where you live all news organizations are forced to publish everything a politician says?

[flyinglizard]

>> And to achieve that you're going to force businesses to host content that hurts their bottom line (the loss of income from the advertisers that will pull out from working with a company that hosts such content).

NYT makes more money from subscriptions than from ads (60% vs 30%), and as a (formerly) paying subscriber I'd like to think it lends them some independence. That aside, many other news sources would find Sen. Cotton's opinions pretty mainstream (certainly these opinions may have even had majority across the general public) and publish such views just fine, without advertisers pulling out.

>> In the country where you live all news organizations are forced to publish everything a politician says?

Of course not. They publish on their own accord, and extremists get an outsized exposure because they are interesting to read (just like click baits, right?). It's how I'd have expected most news organizations to work, you know: reporting on the unusual and unexpected. For me, NYT stopped being a news organization the moment it decided some opinions are forbidden from being published: not because they are fringe (a significant part of the American public agreed with Cotton), not because they come from fringe sources (he's a Senator after all), but because they are contrarian.

[rhino369]

>Was the editor fired because of a "dissenting opinion" or because Cotton was effectively calling for martial law against protestors?

Cotton was just 7 months too early.

[Chris2048]

"martial law against protestors" suggests violence against protest. What was actually suggested:

  an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers

If lawbreaker = protestors in your book, then maybe we differ in what constitutes valid protest.

Also, Cotton pre-emptively disagrees with your characterisation also:

  This [law] doesn’t amount to “martial law” or the end of democracy, as some excitable critics, ignorant of both the law and our history, have comically suggested

[amanaplanacanal]

I thought that’s what local police were already doing? An overwhelming show of force against peaceful protesters in an attempt to deter lawbreakers.