Sen Tom Cotton blasts NYT as it caves in over op-ed calling for troops to quash protests

Sen. Tom Scott has questioned why the New York Times backpedaled on his recent op-ed calling for troops to be sent in to quash rioting seen in recent days connected to the George Floyd protests.  

The paper posted a mea culpa yesterday over its decision to publish Cotton’s incendiary commentary calling for the use of military force against protesters. 

The apology comes after writers and staff voiced their grievances on Twitter over the decision to publish. More than 160 employees had also planned a virtual walkout for Friday morning. 

Scott took to Twitter on Friday, noting that the op-ed had not yet generated a single correction that he knew of. 

Sen. Tom Scott questioned why the New York Times backpedaled on his recent op-ed calling for troops to be sent in to quash rioting seen in recent days connected to the George Floyd protests. He is pictured during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing last month

Scott took to Twitter on Friday, noting that the op-ed had not yet generated a single correction that he knew of

Scott took to Twitter on Friday, noting that the op-ed had not yet generated a single correction that he knew of

‘Lots of talk about fact checking from @nytimes. But nearly 48 hours after publication, not a single correction issued. Keep on looking, @nytimes! I’m sure you can find a misplaced comma or quotation mark to justify surrendering to the woke mob’ he wrote in a tweet. 

His comments were directed at Times reporter Hiroko Tabuchi, who had said on Twitter that the piece had not been properly vetted by the newspaper’s most experienced fact-checkers.’

Staffers around the same time met in for a town hall meeting Friday where it was learned that the paper disputed his claim that he had pitched the theme of the piece. 

‘From New York Times town hall: op-ed team pitched the piece to Tom Cotton. Not the other way around’ tweeted journalist Patrick Coffee who claimed to be privy to the information.

A spokeswoman for the New York Times was not immediately available to elaborate on Coffee’s remarks when DailyMail.com reached. out. 

An unnamed staffer in Cotton’s office had told the National Review that that the senator pitched the theme of the op-ed after he discussed the Insurrection Act on Fox and Friends Monday. The act authorizes the president to ’employ the military ‘or any other means’ in ‘cases of insurrection, or obstruction to the laws’. 

Staffers  met in for a town hall meeting Friday where it was learned that the paper disputed Scott's claim that he had pitched the theme of the piece. Journalist Patrick Coffee tweeted the information, which he claimed to have been privy to

Staffers  met in for a town hall meeting Friday where it was learned that the paper disputed Scott’s claim that he had pitched the theme of the piece. Journalist Patrick Coffee tweeted the information, which he claimed to have been privy to

The staffer said the pitch came along with another proposal, but it was rejected by the Times.

Cotton, a Republican senator from Arkansas, in the final piece would call for the ‘overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers’ from the various protests that have spawned across the United States following the death of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. 

Three drafts of the op-ed were edited, the staffer claims. Editors focused on clarity and style in the first two drafts and then switched to fact-checking on the third. ‘It was pretty rigorous. We were going into the weeds,’ the staffer tells the National Review. 

The Republican senator from Arkansas took to his op-ed on Wednesday to call for the ‘overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers’

However, Eileen Murphy, a spokeswoman for the Times, said Thursday:  ‘We’ve examined the piece and the process leading up to its publication.’

‘This review made clear that a rushed editorial process led to the publication of an op-ed that did not meet our standards,’ Murphy added.  

‘As a result, we’re planning to examine both short-term and long-term changes, to include expanding our fact-checking operation and reducing the number of op-eds we publish.’  

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, told the Washington Post: ‘The attacks on the newspaper capture the rising intolerance for opposing views in our society.’ 

He said it was ‘chilling’ that journalists were demanding what should be published.  

Publisher of New York Times and Chairman of New York Times Company Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr. attenda Conference on July 21, 2015 in New York City

James Bennet, features editor at the New York Times, speaks during the Aspen Ideas Festival on Tuesday, July 1, 2014

The article was initially defended by publisher AG Sulzberger (left) who said the paper aimed to share ‘views from across the spectrum’. The newspaper’s page editor James Bennet (right) also defended the decision to publish. ‘To me, debating influential ideas openly, rather than letting them go unchallenged, is far more likely to help society reach the right answers,’ he said

‘This is akin to priests campaigning against free exercise of religion. . . . I never thought I would see the day where writers called for private censorship of views,’ he added. 

More than a dozen journalists called in sick on the day after the piece was published, the Guardian reported. 

Pulitzer prize winner Nikole Hannah-Jones tweeted that ‘as a black woman, as a journalist, I am deeply ashamed that we ran this.’  

The article was initially defended by publisher AG Sulzberger who said the paper aimed to share ‘views from across the spectrum’.  

Tom Cotton's op-ed was eviscerated on Twitter by the New York Times community and many readers declared their intent to stop reading the publication altogether

Tom Cotton’s op-ed was eviscerated on Twitter by the New York Times community and many readers declared their intent to stop reading the publication altogether

Op-ed contributor and author Roxane Gay declared that the op-ed put black staff at the New York Times in danger

Op-ed contributor and author Roxane Gay declared that the op-ed put black staff at the New York Times in danger

New York Times blunders

2019 – An article praising Ashkenazi Jews for their scientific accomplishments was slammed for suggesting they are more intelligent than other people. Critics said the comments were akin to embracing eugenics. 

 2019 – A cartoon of US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu showed Trump wearing a kippah leading Netanyahu wearing a Star of David collar. The NYT admitted to using ‘anti-Semitic tropes’. 

2019 – The paper fired Alison Roman, an up-and-coming chef who used judgemental language in an interview with television personality Chrissy Teigen.

2019 – An article following the El Paso and Dayton shootings, declared, ‘Trump Urges Unity Vs. Racism.’ The headline, published on the paper’s front page, drew condemnation from Democrat politicians. 

2018 – Sarah Jeong, who had posted derogatory tweets about white people, was hired as the paper’s lead technology writer, drawing criticism from conservatives. 

 2017 – Police in Manchester, UK, said they were ‘furious’ with the paper’s decision to publish leaked photos showing the scene of the Manchester bombings, including a backpack, nuts and screws, and a device identified as a ‘possible detonator’. Manchester police said, as a results, they would stop sharing intelligence with the US.

2019 – The Times posted a cartoon of Trump and Putin as gay lovers, which was criticized as homophobic. They defended its publication. 

2017 – The paper’s metro editor published an article entitled ‘How Vital Are Women? This Town Found Out as They Left to March,’ which drew online ire, forcing the editor to issue an apology. 

2009 – TV critic Alessandra Stanley’s series of errors were corrected by Clark Hoyt, the Times’ public editor. 

2006 – The paper removed sensitive information regarding the Bush administration’s relation with Iran, including that they had offered to negotiate a settlement with the Islamic Republic in 2003 and that they co-operated after 9/11. 

2004 – The publication was sued by Dr. Steven Hatfill, a former U.S. Army germ-warfare researcher, for indirectly suggesting he may be a ‘likely culprit’ in posting anthrax. Hatfill was unable to prove wrongdoing on the part of the Times.  

2003 – The paper admitted that one of its writers, Jayson Blair, had committed journalistic fraud over several years. Blair resigned immediately, as did Howell Raines, the executive editor, and Gerald M. Boyd, managing editor. 

2003 – Reporter Judith Miller helped the Bush administration to make a case for war in Iraq by claiming that Saddam Hussein ‘had or was acquiring’ weapons of mass destruction.    

1999 – The Times ran stories about the alleged theft of documents from a Manhattan Project lab called Los Alamos in New Mexico by a Taiwanese man named Dr Wen Ho Lee. He was indicted on 59 counts and spent 278 days in solitary confinement.  The government was unable to prove the case and President Bill Clinton was forced to apologize.         

Bennet, despite sources at the paper saying he didn’t read the essay before it was published, said it was right to post the piece. 

‘To me, debating influential ideas openly, rather than letting them go unchallenged, is far more likely to help society reach the right answers,’ he said.       

‘Throughout our history, presidents have exercised this authority on dozens of occasions to protect law-abiding citizens from disorder,’ Cotton claimed. 

‘Nor does it violate the Posse Comitatus Act, which constrains the military’s role in law enforcement but expressly excepts statutes such as the Insurrection Act.’  

Cotton’s op-ed was eviscerated on Twitter by the New York Times community and many readers declared their intent to stop reading the publication altogether.  

Op-ed contributor and author Roxane Gay declared that the op-ed but black staff at the New York Times in danger. 

Gay continued: ‘As a NYT writer I absolutely stand in opposition to that Tom Cotton ‘editorial.’ 

We are well served by robust and ideologically diverse public discourse that includes radical, liberal, and conservative voices. 

‘This is not that. His piece was inflammatory and endorsing military occupation as if the constitution doesn’t exist.’

Many pointed out that the op-ed was released on the 31st anniversary of the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 when Chinese troops killed thousands of young protesters who they claimed had been ‘rioting.’

‘The decision to publish @SenTomCotton calling for troop deployments to quell unrest falls short of sound journalistic practice,’ said former NYT’s Op-Ed Editor Sewell Chan.  

‘It calls for ‘an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers’ but offers no evidence that existing law enforcement efforts—by National Guard troops, county sheriffs, city police departments—is failing,’ Chan continued.

‘As @EsperDoD said today: ‘The option to use active duty forces in a law enforcement role should only be used as a matter of last resort—and only in the most urgent and dire of situations. 

‘We are not in one of those situations now. I do not support invoking the Insurrection Act.”

Chan said that the NYT has published controversial and provocative perspectives in the past – and especially during his time as editor. 

‘But he asserted that Cotton’s piece was not ‘original’ or ‘timely.’ 

‘It might have been 2 days ago, but Pentagon, @EsperDoD and Mattis have been clearly pushing back,’ he added. 

‘The governors haven’t asked for military deployments—in fact, several told Trump it would make things much worse’.

‘#TruthMatters, and I will always read @nytimes. But the richest, largest and most powerful newspaper in America needs to exercise discretion and prudence in the use of its platform. This fell far short.’

Brian Schatz, a Senator from Hawaii, shared that he had sent numerous ‘non-fascist opinion pieces to the Times,’ calling Cotton’s piece ‘sour grapes.’ 

He shared that he had done one on climate, one for medicaid and one for debt free college.

Others rebuked the Times leadership for running the piece at all.

‘You think that Cotton is using the Times’ neutered bothsidesism to call for domestic massacres but in fact the Times ownership and leadership are using Tom Cotton to launder their own desire for and advocacy of domestic massacres in the name of order and getting back to Cipriani,’ stated author Jacob Bacharach.

A.G. Sulzberger, publisher for the New York Times, sent a letter to the company saying that while he stood behind the publishing of the piece, he was listening to black employees at the company.

Gay continued: 'As a NYT writer I absolutely stand in opposition to that Tom Cotton “editorial.” We are well served by robust and ideologically diverse public discourse that includes radical, liberal, and conservative voices

Gay continued: ‘As a NYT writer I absolutely stand in opposition to that Tom Cotton ‘editorial.’ We are well served by robust and ideologically diverse public discourse that includes radical, liberal, and conservative voices

'This is not that. His piece was inflammatory and endorsing military occupation as if the constitution doesn’t exist'

‘This is not that. His piece was inflammatory and endorsing military occupation as if the constitution doesn’t exist’

Many pointed out that the op-ed was released on the 31st anniversary of the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 when Chinese troops killed protesters

Many pointed out that the op-ed was released on the 31st anniversary of the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 when Chinese troops killed protesters

‘It is clear many believed this piece fell outside the realm of acceptability, representing dangerous commentary in an explosive moment that should not have been found in The Times,’ he said. ‘Even as a counterpoint to our own institutional view.

He added: ‘It’s essential that we listen to and reflect on the concerns we’re hearing, as we would with any piece that is subject of significant criticism. I will do so with an open mind.’

‘Our journalistic mission — to seek the truth and help people understand the world — could not be more important than it is in this moment of upheaval.’

'The decision to publish @SenTomCotton calling for troop deployments to quell unrest falls short of sound journalistic practice,' said former NYT's Op-Ed Editor Sewell Chan

‘The decision to publish @SenTomCotton calling for troop deployments to quell unrest falls short of sound journalistic practice,’ said former NYT’s Op-Ed Editor Sewell Chan

Brian Schatz, a Senator from Hawaii, shared that he had sent numerous 'non-fascist opinion pieces to the Times,' calling Cotton's piece 'sour grapes'

Brian Schatz, a Senator from Hawaii, shared that he had sent numerous ‘non-fascist opinion pieces to the Times,’ calling Cotton’s piece ‘sour grapes’

A.G. Sulzberger, publisher for the New York Times, sent a letter to the company saying that while he stood behind the publishing of the piece, he was listening to black employees at the company

A.G. Sulzberger, publisher for the New York Times, sent a letter to the company saying that while he stood behind the publishing of the piece, he was listening to black employees at the company

Read more at DailyMail.co.uk