![op base one piece op base one piece](https://i.pinimg.com/originals/52/d2/5b/52d25b34133f6ae16e71cd1293ba2740.png)
Sulzberger and editorial page editor James Bennet initially defended the publication of the op-ed as part of the open debate that helps society “reach the right answers.” Twenty-four hours later, management was backpedaling. More than 800 Times employees signed a letter protesting the Cotton piece. I am deeply ashamed that we ran this,” she tweeted.
![op base one piece op base one piece](https://comicvine.gamespot.com/a/uploads/original/11136/111361078/7299532-61862119-3f39-4782-ac8e-f1b2ab8373c7.jpeg)
A tweet from Times workers read: “Running this puts Black staff in danger.” Nikole Hannah-Jones, progenitor of the Times’s revisionist American history, the 1619 Project, added another intersectional dimension to the staffers’ victimization: “As a black woman. It was apparently life-threatening to the paper’s black employees. The Cotton op-ed threw the New York Times into crisis. Cotton grounded his argument in historical precedent, invoking, among other examples, President Dwight Eisenhower’s deployment of the 101st Airborne to protect Little Rock Central High School’s desegregation efforts. But the police were at present overwhelmed, outnumbered, and disproportionately targeted by the violence, Cotton noted. The senator explicitly distinguished the rioters from “peaceful, law-abiding protesters” the latter should not be confused with “bands of miscreants,” he said. Cotton argued that then-President Donald Trump should consider calling out the military in response to the race riots that had been triggered by the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis and that were then engulfing urban areas. Such policies harm law-abiding blacks most of all, the Journal’s opinion section maintains, by leaving them defenseless against criminals.ĭespite Soros’s challenge to its longstanding editorial line, the opinion section proceeded as if publishing contrary views were a normal part of being a newspaper opinion page.Ĭontrast that calm with the outcry at the New York Times in June 2020, when the paper published an op-ed by Arkansas senator Tom Cotton. Nor are decriminalization and decarceration a blow for racial justice, despite being fiercely pursued by Soros-backed district attorneys. The paper has argued in its editorials that the American criminal-justice system is not racist. Yet Soros’s piece fundamentally contradicted the Journal’s editorial position on policing and prosecution. There were no calls for the opinion page to retract or renounce the op-ed, or for the opinion editor to resign. No editorial writer or columnist tweeted that Soros’s op-ed put him in danger. But within the Wall Street Journal’s editorial offices, quiet reigned. To be sure, the conservative commentariat outside the Wall Street Journal sprang into action, penning articles, editorials, and letters to the editor challenging Soros’s claims. What happened next was startling: nothing. are five times as likely to be sent to jail as white people.” (It was not clear whether Soros literally meant “jail,” whether he was using the term as a synecdoche for both prisons and jails, or whether he knew the difference between the two.) American law enforcement is “rife with injustices,” Soros wrote, as evidenced by the fact that “black people in the U.S. His efforts on behalf of criminal-justice reform are both popular and morally righteous, he claimed. Soros defended the resources he has poured into the campaigns of progressive prosecutors ($40 million over a decade, according to a June report). On Monday, the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by George Soros, billionaire hedge fund manager and founder of the Open Society Foundations.