New York Times columnist Bret Stephens blasted his own paper’s decision to disavow Senator Tom Cotton’s recent op-ed about the George Floyd unrest as “an invitation to intellectual cowardice.”
James Bennet, the editorial page editor of the liberal newspaper, resigned Sunday amid reports of anger and outrage inside the Times over the publication of Cotton’s piece. The senator had called for troops to be sent in if police could not stop violence erupting from protests.
NY TIMES EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR RESIGNS AMID STAFF FURY OVER TOM COTTON OP-ED
Stephens’ latest piece titled, “What The Times Got Wrong Tom Cotton speaks for a large part of this country. Will we not listen?” goes directly after his employer over the way the ordeal unfolded as liberal staffers publicly turned on the Gray Lady.
“Serious journalism, complete with a vigorous exchange of ideas, cannot survive in an atmosphere in which modest intellectual risk-taking or minor offenses against new ideological orthodoxies risk professional ruin,” Stephens wrote.
He wrote that despite “nobody” at the paper agreeing with the op-ed, the Times’ decision to disavow it is “a gift to the enemies of a free press.”
“It is a violation of the principles that are supposed to sustain the profession, particularly our obligation to give readers a picture of the world as it really is,” Stephens wrote. “And, as the paper dismisses distinguished journalists along with controversial opinions, it’s an invitation to intellectual cowardice.”
PHILADELPHIA NEWSPAPER EDITOR RESIGNS AFTER 'BUILDINGS MATTER, TOO' HEADLINE
Stephens then noted that Cotton isn’t exactly going anywhere, so perhaps his critics should understand his point of view.
“Cotton isn’t some nobody you’ll never hear from again. He has the pulse of his party, the ear of the president and an eye on higher office. Readers deserve an unvarnished look at who this man is and what he stands for,” Stephens wrote. “Many critics of the piece’s publication think otherwise.”
The Times columnist then criticized the editor’s note that was placed on Cotton’s piece, questioning if the paper would have stood by Cotton’s article if he “made a better case” for sending in troops or if the “piece’s supposed flaws a pretext for achieving the politically desired result by a paper that lost its nerve in the face of a staff revolt?”
The publication of Cotton’s piece sparked a revolt among Times journalists, with some saying it endangered black employees. Some staff members called out sick Thursday in protest, and the Times later announced that a review found the piece did not meet its standards.
Stephens feels the “value of Cotton’s op-ed doesn’t lie in its goodness or rightness,” instead it “lies in the fact that Cotton is a leading spokesman for a major current of public opinion.”
President Trump even weighed in on the matter by commending Cotton's op-ed piece, and denouncing the Times as "Fake News."
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
“To suggest our readers should not have the chance to examine his opinions for themselves is to patronize them,” Stephens wrote. “To claim that his argument is too repugnant for publication is to write off half of America — a remarkable about-face for a paper that, after 2016, fretted that it was out of touch with the country we live in.”
Stephens then linked to a feature explaining what the paper got wrong about the 2016 presidential election.
“The most serious criticism is that publication of the piece puts black lives at risk, including members of the Times staff,” Stephens wrote. “As important as it is to try to keep people safe against genuine threats, it is not the duty of the paper to make people feel safe by refusing to publish a dismaying op-ed.”
Fox News’ Joseph A. Wulfsohn and Bradford Betz contributed to this report.