The Times on its Putin op-ed
Here’s the paper’s rationale for publishing the Putin op-ed, according to Times public editor Margaret Sullivan [emphasis mine]:
“There is no ideological litmus test” for an Op-Ed article, [editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal] said. In addition, he said, it is not the purpose of the Op-Ed pages to help or hurt the American government. It is to present a variety of interesting and newsworthy points of view, at least some of which will be contrary to The Times’s own point of view, expressed in its editorials…
Mr. Rosenthal said there was no way of knowing whether Mr. Putin himself wrote the article ”“ “with a public official you can never know,” because they tend to have staffers who write their speeches and other communications. But, he said, it needed virtually no editing and went through almost no changes.
Editors like clean copy. Makes it so much easier on them.
And they like readers. The Times hasn’t seen a whole lot of them lately, and the Putin op-ed fills the bill nicely—nothing like controversy to act as a draw.
The comments to the Sullivan article are edifying, too. Here’s a little sampler, a glimpse into the minds of what might be typical Times readers.
First we have Putin the straight-shooter and crusader against chemical weapons:
After all, we are entering into a partnership with THAT man to deal with Assad’s various and voluminous poisons. Hopefully, Putin will prove useful to us in accomplishing that goal. In doing so, he was not likely to splash us with false praise. He said it like he sees it. Let’s move forward.
Next we have an equivalence between the KGB and the CIA:
I had to smile when noticing one of the reader comments that referenced the fact that president Putin held a key position with the KGB and implied that he could never be trusted. I guess the poster is too young to remember that George H Bush was the director of our very own CIA before being elected president of the United States.
And then there’s the Times in its new role as UN newsletter:
The NYT’s is the worlds newspaper. Maybe putin’s piece will be the start of leaders all over the world voicing their opinions in print.
And a classic misunderstanding of free speech:
People who object to the welcome publication of Putin’s historic statement seeking to keep bombs from falling and nerve gas from being deployed; people who objected to publication of the Pentagon Papers; people who objected to the publication of Wiki-leaks and Snowden’s information look to be opponents of the very basis of the American constitution and democracy–namely, the 1st amendment: FREE SPEECH. It seems to me radically unAmerican to seek to suppress publication of news you don’t like, the words of those you’re condition to hate, and ideas you don’t want others to know about.
There are other comments, of course, that disapprove of Putin and/or the Times. But a quick perusal indicates that the “yeas” seem to dramatically outnumber the “nays.”
What a sorry state of affairs. But we already knew that.
And they published it on 9/11.
Why not wait one day even?
Didn’t I read somewhere that Pravda was thinking about buying the Times?
Well, I suppose that a Communist with an opinion (Putin) is sometimes viewed more favorably than a Communist who constantly vacillates (Obama).
@southpaw – I thought the NY Times was Pravda.
On the specific subject of dissing Americans’ belief in their own exceptionalism, to me, Putin is tweaking the amateur-in-chief’s nose, knowingly shoving the latter’s own past words down his throat. I’m referring to the a-i-c’s speech at the NATO Summit in Strasbourg, France, in 2009:
“I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”
Now, the a-i-c wants to appeal to Americans’ sense of their exceptionalism, and Putin is in the a-i-c’s face about it. I for one am happy that *someone* prominent is finally showing up the a-i-c. But my happiness is tempered by the fact that it takes an utter lout like Putin to do it and have the citizenry-at-large take notice, at least a larger-than-usual portion of the citizenry-at-large.
But that’s the name of the 2013 game. Get someone to write an op-ed in the Noo Yawk Times for you, and the Times’ readers (and the mainstream-fed citizenry) will take notice — except that, if, for example, even if Newt Gingrich or Sarah Palin could get printed in the Noo Yawk Times, they’re easily dismissed as wingnuts (or just plain nuts).
Is our USA diminished as well? I have to say yes, and I’m not happy about *that*, but it’s been being diminished for years by the a-i-c administration’s antics. We’re naked out there, the emperor has no clothes anyway.
The mainstream media’s filter works on the American citizenry, but it’s of no effect at all when it comes to the world’s citizenry. They’ve been laughing at us ever since they realized what a buffoon the a-i-c actually is. No more Greek columns and soaring speeches, that’s for sure. No one faints at his events any more.
Anyway, for this very unusual moment in time, I actually find myself cheering Putin on. I’ll have to petition for forgiveness some other time. Right now, GO POOTIE!
Obama is a far greater danger to America than Putin.
Never in a million years did I think it would be possible to see a KGB Russian Thug Dictator as a liberator = but if he harms Obama he helps America….and that is just the fact.
The enemy from outside is like nothing compared to the enemy inside who is Chief Exec and CIC. Putin is not an American, and he wants to defeat us. I don’t consider Obama to be a real American (legally yes, spiritually no) and he wants to defeat us too. He’s got a much better chance than Putin and is already doing amazing damage.
Quick perusal of comments (especially in the NYT) is hardly an indicator of sentiment regarding Putin’s outrageous cheekiness in presenting this op-ed (which the Times lapped up like a dog licking anti-freeze.)
I think most Americans — those too busy working to take time to read the NYT online and go through the difficulty of making comments — were offended by it, as they should be.
I actually do think it is a good thing that we can hear, indirectly direct so to speak, from world leaders.
Bush, Sarah Palin, and other people would have benefited more if they had bypassed the gate keepers of information in the beginning.