Skip to main content

The NY Times speaks......

The NY Times, for all the criticisms levelled against it, especially in recent times, has had a regular feature of Talk to the Times - meaning that various senior personnel answer reader's questions.

The current occupant of the page is Editorial Page Editor, Andrew Rosenthal. He was asked where the NY Times stood on the Iranian President and his [then upcoming] talk at Columbia University:

"Having not heard the Iranian president's speech yet, I naturally don't have anything to say about his comments. In general, I don't plan to use this forum as a space for editorializing about the issues of the day.

But, there's an easy and obvious answer to the question, "Should he be allowed to speak at Columbia?" The answer is, yes.

Free speech is one of the founding principles of our republic. How can we deny him the right to speak simply because we don't like what he has to say, or what he has already said? Isn't that one of the biggest things that sets this nation apart from nations like Iran in the first place?

The right of free speech cannot be parceled out based on whether we want to hear what the speaker has to say, or whether we agree with those views. It means, quite often, tolerating the expression of views that we find distasteful, perhaps even repugnant. There is much that the Iranian president has to say that is loathsome, about Israel, about the Holocaust, about terrorism, about the United States. Are those views going to disappear because we cover our ears? Are we better equipped to counter those views if we don't hear them? We think the answer to those questions is, "No."

For anyone interested in newspapers, and especially the NY Times, which publishes under the banner "All the News Fit to Print" - about which some would argue - the Q & A is well worth reading, here.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Oh yer?

Credited to Nick Anderson

Donald T: First seduced..... then betrayed!

All those supporters of Trump - who, heaven's only knows, got him headed for the White House - are in a for more than a rude awakening and shock.   Whatever Trump "promised" is just not going to happen....as Paul Krugman so clearly spells out in his latest op-ed piece "Seduced and Betrayed by Donald Trump" in The New York Times.

"Donald Trump won the Electoral College (though not the popular vote) on the strength of overwhelming support from working-class whites, who feel left behind by a changing economy and society. And they’re about to get their reward — the same reward that, throughout Mr. Trump’s career, has come to everyone who trusted his good intentions. Think Trump University.

Yes, the white working class is about to be betrayed.

The evidence of that coming betrayal is obvious in the choice of an array of pro-corporate, anti-labor figures for key positions. In particular, the most important story of the week — seriously, people, stop focusing on Trum…

Snooping..... at its worst

The Brits have just brought in legislation which allows for unprecedented "snooping" in a Western democracy - says Edward Snowden.   Let truthdig explain....

"On Tuesday, the United Kingdom instated the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, a piece of legislation described by whistleblower Edward Snowden as “the most extreme surveillance in the history of western democracy.”

The law, informally known as the “Snooper’s Charter,” spent over a year in Parliament before it was passed. The Guardian reported:

"The new surveillance law requires web and phone companies to store everyone’s web browsing histories for 12 months and give the police, security services and official agencies unprecedented access to the data.

It also provides the security services and police with new powers to hack into computers and phones and to collect communications data in bulk. The law requires judges to sign off police requests to view journalists’ call and web records, but the measure has been descri…