Editorial page editor being blasted for putting black New York Times employees' lives in danger by running Tom Cotton's op-ed

It appears as though a lot of New York Times writers and other employees are getting the vapors Wednesday upon finding out that the paper has run an op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton arguing for the military to move in and quell the rioting and looting that’s going on in major cities (even though the George Floyd protests have been “mostly peaceful”).

They’re all tweeting the same thing: “Running this puts black New York Times staff in danger.”

NYT reporters in a rare open revolt over the opinion side running Tom Cotton’s op-Ed calling to deploy the military to “restore order.” pic.twitter.com/MgLuR8EunJ

— Alex Thompson (@AlxThomp) June 3, 2020

I was reliably informed by leftist media just a few days ago that a secret cabal of white supremacists were behind the violence and looting. Seems like unleashing the military to bring them down would be something we could all agree on. Unless that was a lie… https://t.co/XQPfjvHlvQ

— Derek Hunter (@derekahunter) June 4, 2020

Editorial page editor James Bennet understands that Cotton’s op-ed is painful to read and even dangerous.

Good time to remind people that a recent poll by @MorningConsult found 58 percent of voters support using the military to deal with protests and demonstrations across the country, alongside the police. Oftentimes reality is different than woke Twitter.

— Madison Morris (@madisonc_morris) June 4, 2020

These are activist tactics. Make an accusation, get a bunch of other people to blast it out, and pummel the target into submission. Don't bother backing it up, because that's not the point. It's not debate. It's coercion.

Journalists against journalism. https://t.co/5GnJmHRi9m

— China is lying (@jtLOL) June 4, 2020

The New York Times woke Slack channel puts my mental health in danger

— Joe Gabriel Simonson (@SaysSimonson) June 4, 2020

hey man let me know in the DMs what we're all gonna tweet at the same time

— Charles Fain Lehman (@CharlesFLehman) June 4, 2020

I read Cotton's op-ed. I started off in disagreement. I ended up informed about its more recent use, but still unconvinced. That's not surprising, as I've always found Cotton too bellicose.
But that his op-ed is dangerous? That's insane abuse of language.

— Tim Carney (@TPCarney) June 4, 2020

Would electing Cotton president be dangerous? Yes! Don't do it!
But do run his op-eds.

— Tim Carney (@TPCarney) June 4, 2020

Same. I disagreed with the entire premise, but read it and learned there's at least a rationale to his proposal. It's flawed and unpersuasive, but that's what makes his opinion his and my opinion mine.

— Kevin Madden (@KevinMaddenDC) June 4, 2020

It's a way to use "safety concerns" to shut down discourse instead of debate the relevant facts, arguments, theories. And it's becoming increasingly popular unfortunately.

— Bo Winegard (@EPoe187) June 4, 2020

The thing is, being bellicose in reaction to Marxists, and their sociopathic criminal shock troops, burning down American cities seems a huge improvement upon being bellicose against random countries in the Middle East posing no threat to us.

— Gerard Perry (@GerardPerry13) June 4, 2020

Here’s a list of unserious dolts who work for the New York Times. Geez these people are whining babies. Grow up. https://t.co/gP1QVcvnjd

— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) June 4, 2020

A bunch of insufferable sissies. Pathetic.

Here’s the punchline, I think @TomCottonAR is wrong on the substance and said so on the air when I guested for @HughHewitt and on Twitter.

But the idea that I would try and silence him, especially by whining, is insane. https://t.co/miDcanaQ8E

— Kurt Schlichter (@KurtSchlichter) June 4, 2020

This headline from CBS News likely put a white businessman’s life in danger, but whatever.

Related:

Shameless: CBS News ratchets up the tension with headline noting that white bar owner won’t face charges for shooting black protester https://t.co/EIVRkT5xLb

— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) June 4, 2020