[gengelbro]

I think the sophisticated reader (NYTs being the 'paper of record' and all), should be able to be exposed to commonly held opinions of their political enemies, even if the rhetoric or 'factual basis' they might hold in disrepute.

The fact is the NYT can't even put the words of a sitting US Senator on their pages, with no implicit _agreement_ of its factual value, and instead decapitates their own for it, shows crippling ideological constraint.

[vanusa]

even if [the] 'factual basis' they might hold in disrepute.

While I agree that sheltering its readers from their ideological enemies is not a good thing, I do think there should be a minimal standard of non-drivel-tude.

For example, I don't see any benefit to its readers in passing along opinion pieces from the Flat Earth Society. Or proclamations from nutjob senators claiming that it was the police "bore the brunt of the violence" during the uprising that followed the George Floyd lynching.

[gengelbro]

If one believes as you do that they are "nutjob senators", it should be all the more important that you're appraised as to their thinking and thought process no?

Why would you choose selective ignorance to those which wield power?

[vanusa]

The opposite of "selective ignorance" is not publishing their verbal flatulence in full and as-is.