Is the New York Times opinion section just total trash? | The Tylt
Is the New York Times opinion section just total trash?
Since the 2016 election, The New York Times opinion section has been pissing off its readers. First, there is the Time's obsession with Trump supporters, dedicating the entire section to Trumpsters on the one year anniversary of his inauguration. Then there was the hiring and firing of Quinn Norton—a Nazi-sympathizer who also had an unsavory Twitter past. And now, with people like David Brooks, Bret Stephens and Bari Weiss still writing for the paper, many subscribers have had enough.
Jacob Weindling of Paste Magazine put together a list of the worst takes from The New York Times Opinion section, asking readers to discern between the far-right Breitbart and The Times.
Anyone who writes on the internet has penned a poor column at some point in their lives. It’s unavoidable, and no writer should be defined by one piece. However, when that writer writes multiple sub-par posts, at a certain point, it reaches a critical mass where oafishness is the only logical explanation. The New York Times has always employed less than stellar opinion columnists... [But] we seem to have entered a new era where bad takes are the explicit business model of the New York Times opinion page.
But many have applauded the paper's decision to feature more conservative voices. Kyle Smith of the National Review is happy that the Times is finally acknowledging the voices of those who may disagree with their readers.
After the 2016 election, the leaders of the Times realized they had been profoundly misguided about the strength of the Donald Trump movement... To its credit, the Times realized its error. Two days after the election, its executive editor Dean Baquet told the paper’s media columnist Jim Rutenberg, “If I have a mea culpa for journalists and journalism, it’s that we’ve got to do a much better job of being on the road, out in the country, talking to different kinds of people than the people we talk to..."
The opinion section of any paper is meant to provoke and challenge its readers, and it appears the Times is finally doing that. The fact that Brooks, Stephens and Weiss are so hated by liberals is exactly why they should have their opinions featured. Op-ed columnists who simply preach to the choir don't add nearly as much value as those who force readers to think hard about what it is they believe.
And the New York Times opinion section continues to defend itself against attacks. After dedicating the page to Trump supporters, Editorial page editor James Bennet took full responsibility for the decision and argued presenting both sides was "good journalism."
“We’ve made a lot of criticisms of this administration, and we will continue doing that as long as they persist in their ways. But our readers deserve to understand how other people see what’s unfolding in Washington. To me, it seems totally consistent with doing good journalism. Do you think that’s wrong?”
"I think our boundaries are wide enough to accommodate the arguments of people supporting Donald Trump."
Bennet believes Trump supporters and conservatives have every right to be featured in the opinion section, and listening to these voices will better equip liberals to better deal with opposing views.