What’s more concerning is that this is an “Opinion” piece. That’s a section the NYT invented in the 70’s as a good faith effort to provide “other side” context.
In other words, anything in the “Opinion” section is considered not the view of the NYT. The NYT really really should be team reality on this one.
It was basically the very first shot at a curated message board in the newspaper. Writers unaffiliated with the newspaper were invited to share their opinions on topics “opposite the editorial page”. Other papers adopted it after the fact.
So yeah, it’s an invite-only comments section. You only ever hear about the fucking horrible ones because you probably don’t read the NYT cover to cover every edition.
What’s more concerning is that this is an “Opinion” piece. That’s a section the NYT invented in the 70’s as a good faith effort to provide “other side” context.
In other words, anything in the “Opinion” section is considered not the view of the NYT. The NYT really really should be team reality on this one.
I am pretty sure it was a bad faith effort
It was basically the very first shot at a curated message board in the newspaper. Writers unaffiliated with the newspaper were invited to share their opinions on topics “opposite the editorial page”. Other papers adopted it after the fact.
So yeah, it’s an invite-only comments section. You only ever hear about the fucking horrible ones because you probably don’t read the NYT cover to cover every edition.
There’s examples of the opposite as well:
https://www.jpost.com/international/article-896131
I’m just pointing out that it’s a tool explicitly used to basically say “This is what people not affiliated with our newspaper are saying”.
My point is that the NYT should absolutely be saying this themselves, not just inviting others to say it in an opinion article.
(headline change notwithstanding, that was probably lawyers IMHO)
It is easier to spread propaganda by labeling it opinions article not associated with the media