A Significant Blow to Free Speech

The New York Times, one of the world’s leading newspapers and one which has carried a torch for freedom of speech, has risked sending a dangerous message to its readers: that it’s preferable to bury opinions which are unpopular at the newspaper’s headquarters.

The dismissal of the editorial page editor at The New York Times is a strategic mistake by the prestigious newspaper, and may be a sign that it is failing to serve its readers, and may perhaps even be a breaking point with respect to the faith that some of its readers have placed in the newspaper.* Let’s start with what we know about the issue. Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas wrote an opinion titled “Tom Cotton: Send In the Troops” in which he called for sending in the U.S. military to deal with protests in response to the killing of George Floyd. Cotton clarified later that his intention was to deal with the looters and not with the peaceful protests over “the unjust death of George Floyd.”

The article was extremely aggressive in its tone, making broad generalizations, and did not make any fair or precise distinction between looters breaking the law and legitimate protesters (even those holding radical political ideologies). Following the publication of the article, readers as well as the Times editorial board harshly criticized the editorial. Some New York Times reporters expressed their severe dissatisfaction with publishing the piece, and argued that it endangered Black coworkers and journalists.

The online version of the the article included an added message from the editors that was no less significant than the article itself, and perhaps even more so. In the message, the editors explained that considering the fact that the subject was one of “life-and-death importance,” the senator’s influential position and the gravity of the steps he was advocating, Cotton’s article should have undergone far “the highest level of scrutiny.’ They say that claims made in the article should have been fact-checked, the tone of the article should have been changed to match the sensitive times we are in, points raised in the article should have been placed in context, and that the newspaper should have written a less “incendiary” headline.

The editors’ unusual note is an admission of guilt. It admits that that there was a failure of journalistic standards which anyone wanting to publish in one of the most prestigious newspapers in the world should meet. Such a failure, the newspaper believes, should have lead to the dismissal of the editor who approved the opinion column.**

That editorial page editor, James Bennet, admitted that he had not read the article, and certainly had not dealt with it as he should have before it was published. Perhaps one might consider that the dismissal of Bennet is justified and that his relationship with his employer came to the point where the Times was not able to rely on his judgment about the editorial pages during the sensitive election season we are in.

However, it is precisely the editors’ explanation for Bennet’s dismissal that point to a worrying trend in which a mainstay of world press like The New York Times justifies a significant limit on the freedom of speech and harms the open market of ideas. It is certainly possible to argue with Cotton’s opinions and tone, but it is impossible to say that his position is not a popular one in America. Bennet’s dismissal* and the debate surrounding the column may deter its editors and journalists from publishing opinions considered not sufficiently enlightened. This chilling effect on publishing opinions will affect the range of commentary Times readers will be exposed to.

The fairness doctrine introduced by the Federal Communications Commission was fully repealed less than 10 years ago. This doctrine required broadcasters in the United States to present fair and balanced coverage of controversial issues of interest, devoting equal airtime to opposing points of view. While these goals were not being met for many years prior to the official repeal of the doctrine, which applied to electronic media but not to news sources like The New York Times, it expressed something deep about journalistic culture in general and about the sort of relationship that it should seek to establish with its audience; that the media should expose its consumers to a wide range of facts and views, and on the basis of this, audiences would have faith in different news media. Thee New York Times, as a newspaper which has won countless Pulitzer Prizes, and an organization that has established itself as one of the leading newspapers in the world, carrying the torch for freedom of speech for many years, risks sending a dangerous message to its readers and journalists: that it is more preferable to bury opinions that are unpopular at newspaper headquarters than to bring them into the sunlight and debate them publicly.

One of the most dangerous phenomena in the current political culture – in the U.S. as well as abroad – is polarization. Each side is entrenched in its own arguments and in the righteousness of their own ways, without truly listening to the other side. Meanwhile, polarization is getting worse. The range of legitimate opinion in The New York Times may, unfortunately, be contributing to this.

*Editor’s note: New York Times editorial page editor James Bennet resigned from his position earlier this month.

**Editor’s note: The editors of the New York Times, in their note about the publication of the opinion in question, did not state that the editorial page editor should have been dismissed. The editors state that the essay “fell short of [New York Times} standards and should not have been published.”