You've probably already heard of the self-own, when someone goes on the Internet and makes what he or she thinks is a profound point only to make a complete jackass of themselves. But here's where we've come to. Put your hands together for the self-hack.
The New York Times is officially reversing course. After Sen. Tom Cotton, a Republican, published an op-ed in the paper Wednesday that was met with outrage, the NYT on Thursday said Cotton's column—which advocated for the federal government using the military to suppress protests over the deaths of black people at the hands of police—did not actually meet the newspaper's standards for publication. James Bennet, the editor who oversees the paper's opinion section (and who initially defended the op-ed's publication), told staff members that he hadn't read Cotton's essay before it was published. Shortly after that meeting, the Times issued a statement that CNN refers to as a "stunning reversal." A spokesperson said a review "made clear that a rushed editorial process led to the publication of an Op-Ed that did not meet our standards."
But it got in anyway. Right.
Candy-asses.
I'd have given the Times props for that op-ed. Lord knows, it's rare when a conservative or a conservative opinion is taken seriously at all, never mind published. But no longer. Whatever vestigial respect I had left for that ridiculous publication has dried up and blown away.
3 comments:
Even this description isn't accurate. I don't read the NYT, but I am sure Sen. Cotton's op-ed did not call for the military to suppress protests. It called for the military to suppress riots. There's a significant difference.
It has been bandied about on Twitter that the NYT actually pitched this op-ed to Cotton, as a set up. Wouldn't put it past them. It's what they do.
Doesn't much matter. They're gutless pieces of crap either way.
Post a Comment