> NYT reporters forced the opinion editor to resign for allowing a Republican senator to publish an op-ed.
That is quite a naive interpretation. It's not like the Times Opinion pages have never seen a Republican op-ed. The issue is that the op-ed in question advocated for violence against American citizens based on factual errors and flimsy premises.
A few months ago, the NYT published an op-ed from the leader of the Taliban. In 1941, they dedicated a full page to an excerpt of Mein Kampf. How is it consistent to give them a voice on the pages of the paper, but to deny the same privilege to a sitting US senator?
It’s an opinion section, and labeled as such. The NYT explicitly does not endorse its content, nor do they designate it as “factual“ reporting. The idea that reporters revolted and the editor of it resigned because a mob disagreed with an opinion in it, seems farcical given that the purpose of such a section is to present opinions opposite those of the editorial board (literally, op-ed).
If it’s full of “factual errors and flimsy premises,” surely NYT readers are smart enough to decide that for themselves. If not, surely the NYT can solicit an opinion from an opposing viewpoint to rebut those “errors.”
It’s not like he is some radical with no voice; he’s an elected senator, and could choose to publish in any number of periodicals. The NYT isn’t “giving him a voice”; he already has one.
That is quite a naive interpretation. It's not like the Times Opinion pages have never seen a Republican op-ed. The issue is that the op-ed in question advocated for violence against American citizens based on factual errors and flimsy premises.