First, let me say, I believe climate change is real, it is indeed caused by humans, mainly the rich ones who figured out that the more shit we can burn faster the more powerful we are. So yeah, it’s real, it’s caused by man. With you strongly.
New York Times hiring a denier. Interesting choice, but fascinating on several levels.
The Times and most other liberal media were soundly and rightly accused of creating an echo chamber that possibly made liberals complacent. It became not just inconceivable that we could elect Trump, on inevitable that we would actually elect a boring, yet sane President.
Whether you believe polls or not, it was an editorial choice to prominently present the results of polls of polls as a single pair of numbers: chance Hillary would win vs chance Trump would. On the day of the election it was 70/30, I think. The bullet here: “Hillary’s gonna win”. The real takeaway that there was nearly a 1-in-3 chance Trump could become President. How do you feel about a 1-in-3 chance playing Russian roulette?
Prior to the election, they tried, after the primaries to step in by being stridently more left-leaning than in recent history, to the exclusion of either balanced reporting, or balanced opinion. The front page was “Trump does this” and “Trump does that” where this and that are negative things. They pointed at all the reasons Trump should lose, without paying a lot of credence to why he might win. There was a clear shift in the news reported, and the opinions stated.
Not much reporting on why somewhere around 1/2 of the country was going to vote for Trump. Still echo chamber, largely. I was a fervid reader, gathering all facts so that I could spread them to liberal friends.
Even Fox has their liberal counterpoint guests. To be sure they are mostly straw-men, foils for the truths.
It is the responsibility of a newspaper as worthy as the NYT to evenly present alternate views. A first-rate outlet that fairly and evenly presents whatever view is representative if a view held by many,
Perhaps it’s an opportunity to understand the fallacious or incorrect arguments of your views, this helping you argue your point more effectively. Maybe this alternate view is able to express a point that is valid, yet not contradictory to yours. I am not sure on this point.
Maybe people believe everything written in the NYT, including the section marked as “Opinion”. Does the Times somehow support an immoral movement by publishing this guy’s views?
I disagree strongly with the views this apparent denyer expresses, as I assume you do. Yet as a supporter of free press, and indeed of press that strives to present all moral views, as long as their editorial merit is suitable, I see these words as a well-written, somewhat unbiased, and logically coherent in 2 of 3 cases. This is a reasonable standard for opinion that can depolarize us and help us find common ground.