Senator Tom Cotton hits back at New York Times for publishing a column calling him FASCIST

Senator Tom Cotton has hit back at the New York Times for running a column calling his op-ed published in the newspaper’s own pages ‘fascist.’

Times staff columnist Michelle Goldberg published her rebuttal on Friday, titled ‘Tom Cotton’s Fascist Op-Ed,’ after the newspaper’s staff expressed outrage over Cotton’s op-ed.

‘I’d like to report an editorial that violates your new policy against publishing editorials that are “contemptuous in tone”‘ Cotton said in a tweet, referring to a leaked remark from Times Publisher A.G. Sulzberger that Cotton’s piece should not have been published.

Cotton’s controversial op-ed was a call for President Donald Trump to use the military to crack down on rioting, looting and violence that gripped many cities during protests over the death of George Floyd. 

Michelle Goldberg

Senator Tom Cotton (left) has hit back at the New York Times for running a column by Michelle Goldberg calling his op-ed published in the newspaper’s own pages ‘fascist.’

‘One thing above all else will restore order to our streets: an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers,’ Cotton, an Arkansas Republican, wrote in the piece published on Wednesday. 

Goldberg responded in her column that the Trump presidency had ‘undermined’ the newspaper’s ability to serve as a forum for competing ideas, ‘because there’s generally no way to defend the administration without being either bigoted or dishonest.’

She claimed that Cotton ‘is calling for what would almost certainly amount to massive violence against his fellow citizens.’

Goldberg’s column called Cotton’s views ‘proto-fascist’, while the title of the piece, which is generally written by an editor, outright called the senator’s column ‘fascist.’ 

Goldberg's column called Cotton's views 'proto-fascist', while the title of the piece, which is generally written by an editor, outright called the senator's column 'fascist'

Goldberg’s column called Cotton’s views ‘proto-fascist’, while the title of the piece, which is generally written by an editor, outright called the senator’s column ‘fascist’

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

The apology came after writers and staff voiced their grievances on Twitter, and more than 300 non-editorial employees planning a virtual walkout for Friday morning. 

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 that certain views should not be published. 

‘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. 

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

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

In an essay on Thursday, Times Opinion Editor James Bennet defended his decision to run Cotton’s op-ed.

‘Cotton and others in power are advocating the use of the military, and I believe the public would be better equipped to push back if it heard the argument and had the chance to respond to the reasoning,’ Bennet wrote.

‘Readers who might be inclined to oppose Cotton’s position need to be fully aware of it, and reckon with it, if they hope to defeat it.’

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.’  

However, Times insiders say Cotton’s op-ed went through a thorough three-stage vetting process, and was reviewed for clarity, style and fact-checking.

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 opinion 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

Disgruntled Times staffers met with management at a town hall meeting Friday where it was learned that the paper disputed a 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 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’. 

Read more at DailyMail.co.uk