>> Following backlash toward the New York Times for its decision to publish an op-ed
by Senator Tom Cotton, where he urged the military to crack skulls of protesters who
are out there just asking the police to stop murdering them.
The New York Times is now kind of backpedaling on its decision to publish that op-ed.
So James Bennett, and this is published in the New York Times, by the way, James Bennett,
the editor in charge of the opinion section, said in a meeting with staff members late
in the day, that he had not read the essay before it was published.
Shortly afterward, The Times issued a statement saying the essay fell short of the newspaper
standards, maybe because Tom Cotton lied and continued to perpetuate this nonsense about
how the protests have been infiltrated by Antifa.
The FBI has indicated that that is not the case.
In fact, there have been some right wingers who have engaged in violence and they're being
investigated.
But Tom Cotton didn't mention that in his little op-ed, did he?
Also Eileen Murphy, who is a time spokesperson said the following, this review made clear
that a rushed editorial process led to the publication of an op-ed that did not meet
our standards.
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.
Right, because that's what people were asking for, like publish less op-eds, and we'll be
happy with that.
I don't think that's what people were asking for.
I think people wanted you guys to maybe stop publishing pro-fascistic nonsense, that basically
calls on the US military to crack the skulls of peaceful protesters.
I mean, these people are amazing.
They're amazing.
How do you have that high level position at the New York Times as the editor of the editorial
section, and you don't even have a minute to sit down and read that nonsense before
you decide to publish it?
No, but it's not the bug, it's the feature, Cenk.
It's not the bug, it's the feature, they want mindless drones that tow a very specific line
and that's what these people do.
>> Yeah.
And so we discussed this yesterday we did a poll on it and in you're about to rub that
in in a second.
And so I took the position that I'm not that concerned about them running the Tom Cotton
op-ed, because he's a Republican senator, and the President of the United States agrees
with that position, that's a real position in America.
I hate that it's a real position in America, and I'll fight it to the very end and with
everything I've got.
But those guys represent a very large faction of Americans.
And so, now here I'll give you the poll, if people voted with Anna and not me, the result
should the New York Times have run the Cotton op-ed?
About 75% of you said no and about 25% said yes.
So now the New York Times is basically saying we shouldn't have run it, so they agree with
three quarters of you and Anna.
I wanna be clear, though, as you saw the video yesterday, I said there was a clear factual
error when Tom Cotton blamed Antifa for protests.
And not only is there no evidence of that, but Ken Klippenstein, at the nation now, he
used to be with The Young Turks, broke the story that the FBI looked into it and found
no connection to Antifa.
So they should, at a bare minimum, have not run that portion of it.
They are supposed to fact check their op-eds.
They're not just supposed to print them, sight unseen.
But to me, that admission that he didn't even read it's amazing.
It's amazingly stupid that he admitted it in public, but it does go to show you what
they do as a regular course of action.
If you're a progressive, they're also not going to read it, they will not publish your
op-ed.
Their idea of a progressive is somebody like Paul Krugman, who loves Hillary Clinton, and
bashed Bernie Sanders to no end.
They're like, what do you mean, we have progressives, like Paul Krugman, who spends 90% of his editorials
attacking Bernie Sanders during the primaries.
But they should- >> Cenk, he called you vile because you criticized
Nancy Pelosi.
>> Yeah, I just- >> Paul Krugman called Cenk vile, it's amazing.
>> I know, but that's their idea of a journalist.
It is someone who would attack anyone who criticizes the powerful.
So, I was criticizing Nancy Pelosi, every fact that I had was exactly right.
It was on the issue of Medicare For All.
And and Paul Krugman just couldn't believe that anybody would criticize the beloved leader
of the Democratic Party in the house, and he attacked me as a vile person.
Anyway, but I actually, Anna, the funny thing is, I had totally forgotten that.
Because they're all the same, what difference does it make?
If it wasn't Krugman it'd be somebody else, right?
But the point is, sight unseen, they will not run progressive op-eds.
And now they say, we're gonna run even less.
So that'll be their excuse for no opinion allowed from the opposition.
Not they control the opposition all day long.
Nancy Pelosi will give Donald Trump, and Chuck Schumer, will give Donald Trump everything
he wants.
They'll give him the entire defense military ass, they'll kiss his ass, but then they'll
do show, they'll do theatrical of ripping up paper and pointing fingers etc, and The
New York Times will celebrate it.
But to say that, yeah, I ran an article calling for an unconstitutional use of the military
within America against our own civilians, but I'd even read it, what do I care?
Fascists are are close to being in charge, in fact they're already here, they're in the
Senate, they're in the White House.
Well, I didn't even bother reading the fascist op-ed, I just ran it.
Well, if you gave me that piece of information then I'd say no, that he shouldn't have run
it, he should at least read the fascists before he runs it.
And by the way, The New York Times would be, if they were here in this room, they'd obviously,
of course, be deeply, deeply offended.
>> Good, good.
>> They would think that we are a bigger problem.
>> Good.
>> No, no, I just want to be clear about that.
And even the ones who rebelled inside the New York Times, I bet you if you showed them
this, they would also agree, I mean, look, we didn't want him to run the Tom Cotton thing,
we want Tom Cotton cancelled.
But these guys, questioning what we do at the New York Times as if we're doing propaganda
for the powerful, and where we just print whatever they say without even reading it,
and these guys are pointing it out?
No, no, no, you guys are worse than Cotton.
No, you guys, none of you are allowed.
But, you're a fascist?
Yeah, just run it without asking.
>> Yeah, the degree to which I have any interest in appealing to those people, it's non existent,
it doesn't exist, I don't care.
I don't care if they find us to be a problem.
In fact, they should see us as a problem, because we challenge them more than anyone
else.
And they hate it.
They hate it because they are incredibly incompetent at what they are supposed to do as journalists.
All they do is positive PR for elitists, both on the left and the right.
That's what they, do that is the antithesis of what journalism is supposed to be.
So if you're a journalism student right now watching this and you aspire to be a journalist,
I'm sure, I know for a fact that the school you're going to is telling you that, if you
want to do print, The New York Times, that's what you can aspire to be.
Look, if you actually care about real journalism, that is the last place you want to end up,
okay?
Because all that publication does, and it's been doing it for decades, is help the powerful
maintain power.
And that's it.
That's all
they do.