Constituent Parts
Sen. Cotton vs. The New York Times | Notes on a controversy
For anyone interested enough to open this piece, there is little need for a primer. But, here it goes. Senator Tom Cotton (Rep. Arkansas) published an op-ed titled ”Send in the Troops” in The New York Times on June 3, 2020. The article mischaracterized the current state of discord across America. Cotton conflates a mostly peaceful protest to rectify deep inequities against Black Americans, with a nihilist, riotous, violence-hungry, insurrectionist movement seeking to upend America as Tom (a privileged, veteran, White American) knows it. Worse than the lies and mistruths, his solution was categorically undemocratic, calling for the use of the military against Americans exercising a constitutional right.
There are a growing number of smart and compelling arguments contesting The New York Times’ decision to publish the piece. The range of complaints has included the harm generated: New York Times staff took to social media to highlight how the op-ed endangers the lives of Black employees and, by extension, all Black Americans, by amplifying a message that offers violence as the solution to civil protest. Relatedly, other voices challenged whether the op-ed’s message qualified as protected speech. Others highlighted the Times’s initial defence (to “provide a debate on important questions”) as an attempt to shirk responsibility, using editorial fairness as a feeble crutch. The Newsguild of New York noted, “Media organizations have a responsibility to hold power to account, not amplify voices of power without context and caution.” The result: an NYT spokesperson admitted the piece was not of acceptable quality Thursday night, walking back statements from senior management who initially stood behind the decision to publish.
And, to be clear, these critiques remain potent. On their terms, and offered from positions of considerable intellect and insight, these challenges demand answers from the Opinion desk.
However, the Times’s deeper dereliction of duty was to present the ideas of a sitting American senator without specifying whether they represent personal reflections or political directives. Is this an instance of Tom Cotton, the private citizen, offering his opinion? Or is this Senator Cotton, channelling the sentiments of Arkansas Republicans, providing a political position? Depending on the answer, the implications for publishing are profoundly different.
If it’s the latter, the op-ed remains contentious, not merely because The New York Times published it. It is controversial because an American (sitting) senator proposed open conflict between his military and the people: an elected official, empowered by American voters, ostensibly shared their political message with the country. But we have little evidence that supporters of Senator Cotton hold these views. To be confident of this, however, the Times would need proof that public opinion from Arkansas, his state, falls in line with Senator Cotton’s statement. Stated otherwise, the Senator Cotton’s call to arms should have prompted a news, not opinion, piece.
The failure here, among many, is The New York Times’s inability to see his statement as a proposition to unravel, to better understand if, how, and why, Tom Cotton — a man empowered by others to exercise their political power — was able to advocate racialized violence. So doing, the Times missed an opportunity to explore how this sentiment is related to — or exploitative of — his Republican supporters in Arkansas. This reporting would tell us something important about American politics in 2020.
If, instead, his constituents in Arkansas disagree, and the “Send in the Troops” screed is nothing more than personal philosophy, then it has no place in the gated real estate of The New York Times opinion pages. The op-ed, littered with factual errors and unfounded analogies, is evidence of a politician laundering his power to amplify a message that should be remanded to the off-ramps of political discourse. After all, a personal vision that simplifies reality and does violence to facts is not worthy of consideration. These sentiments ought to be ignored, left without attention or exposure, to wither and die.
