Podcast Summary: "All The Opinion That's Fit To Print?"

Podcast Information:

• Title: On the Media
• Host/Author: WNYC Studios
• Episode: All The Opinion That's Fit To Print?
• Release Date: June 10, 2020

Introduction

In the episode titled "All The Opinion That's Fit To Print?", hosts Brooke Gladstone and Micah Loewinger delve into the tumultuous aftermath of a controversial op-ed published by The New York Times. The discussion centers around the op-ed authored by U.S. Senator Tom Cotton, the ensuing backlash, and the broader implications for media platforms grappling with diverse and polarized viewpoints.

Context of the Tom Cotton Op-Ed

The controversy ignited when Senator Tom Cotton published an opinion piece in The New York Times, advocating for an "overwhelming show of force to quash the protests" against police brutality. David Roberts, a Vox columnist, critiques the op-ed, highlighting its role in exacerbating tensions and undermining democratic values.

David Roberts [02:02]: "If you just read the column, you would have thought that there were squadrons of radical antifa domestic terrorists hovering around all these demonstrations and protests, and there just wasn't."

Reaction and Controversy

The publication of Cotton's piece sparked immediate and fierce criticism from both readers and The New York Times staff. James Bennett, the opinion editor at the time, initially defended the op-ed on the grounds of editorial independence but later resigned after admitting he had not read the piece before its publication.

David Roberts [01:03]: "...not to publish misinformation."

Roberts argues that the op-ed contained inaccuracies, exaggerating the presence and responsibility of violent factions in protests, thereby distorting the reality of the situation.

David Roberts [02:02]: "He exaggerated the level of violence. He exaggerated who's responsible for the violence."

Analysis of NYT's Op-Ed Page

The hosts explore the foundational challenges The New York Times faces in maintaining a diverse range of opinions on its op-ed pages amidst shifting political landscapes. Roberts asserts that the traditional framework, which assumes common foundational values like free speech and democratic principles, is increasingly at odds with the evolving Republican base.

David Roberts [03:59]: "We share all these assumptions. So within the playing field defined by those assumptions, let's hear people argue it out."

He further critiques James Bennett's approach, suggesting that the editor's inability to incorporate genuine Trumpist conservative voices without compromising on factual and ethical standards led to the publication of an op-ed that did not reflect the current conservative momentum.

David Roberts [05:28]: "What Trumpism has become is we are going to hold on to power... We, being white, rural and suburban people, are declining in power."

Challenges of Modern Conservatism

Roberts discusses the difficulties in finding conservative voices that align with both The New York Times' editorial standards and the contemporary Republican ideology. He highlights that many traditional conservative writers do not represent the current right-wing movement's motivations or actions.

David Roberts [06:24]: "It's kind of the oldest political impulse in the book, but it's not reason, it's will to power."

This sentiment underscores the growing divide between established media institutions and the evolving political rhetoric of the GOP, making it challenging to present a balanced array of opinions without endorsing harmful or inaccurate narratives.

Discussion on Journalism Principles

The conversation shifts to the core principles of journalism, emphasizing the importance of truth, accuracy, and democratic values. Roberts argues that The New York Times must uphold these principles to maintain journalistic integrity and support a healthy democracy.

David Roberts [12:56]: "You can't have journalism unless you have at least a presumption that people ought to tell the truth..."

He criticizes the newspaper's handling of the Cotton op-ed, suggesting that the editorial response was insufficient in addressing the fundamental issues raised by the piece.

David Roberts [12:56]: "We believe in equality under law... We don't think that's on the acceptable range or spectrum of opinions."

Future Implications

The hosts ponder the long-term consequences of the Cotton affair on media practices. They speculate whether The New York Times' decision will set a precedent for stricter content standards, potentially limiting the diversity of opinions on major news platforms.

Bob Garfield [11:15]: "...voices who wished to suppress the noxious speech were very similar to the voices who throughout the 60s and 70s and 80s and 90s were complaining about the monopolistic media who suppressed diverse voices."

Roberts expresses concern that without clear principles guiding editorial decisions, media outlets may become battlegrounds for ideological conflicts, rather than platforms for informed and respectful discourse.

Conclusion

The episode concludes with a reflection on the delicate balance media must maintain between fostering diverse opinions and upholding factual, democratic values. Both hosts emphasize the need for media organizations to clearly articulate their foundational principles to navigate the complexities of modern political and social debates effectively.

Bob Garfield [16:46]: "David, thank you very much."

David Roberts [16:47]: "It's been a pleasure, Bob, thanks."

This episode of On the Media provides a comprehensive examination of the challenges faced by traditional media in an era of heightened polarization and misinformation. By dissecting the New York Times' handling of the Tom Cotton op-ed, Brooke Gladstone and Micah Loewinger underscore the imperative for media institutions to defend democratic values while striving for genuine diversity of thought.