"For the Times...the question...[is] how hospitable the op-eds should be to illiberal and sometimes unscientific positions—where do facts end and values begin? For many Times readers—and many scientists, for that matter—questioning the science of global warming is not different in kind than, say, not ruling out the possibility that the world may be flat. And many Times readers believe, with some justification, that only one of the political parties is truly a full citizen of the reality-based community. What is the responsibility to provide equal time in such circumstances? These are not at all simple lines to draw."
Yes, they are. They need to stop with this equal time nonsense. In other words, it's one thing to debate a scientific fact (ie, what is the extent of climate change damage?) but when people deny its proven existence, they just kicked themselves out of the convo and earned Alex Jones loon status.
"The other fact is that there are just more opinions in the world than ever before—it turns out everyone does have one—and, these days, who cares whether those opinions are amateur or professional?"
I do. Plenty of people, as well. (Including the NYT staffers who let Bennet have it at his recent town hall meeting.) This kind of erroneous thinking is how you end up with the Tomi Lahren's of the world. I don't see the NY Post looking to address a more liberal viewpoint from their readers as some sort of OpEd mission. Yes, the Post is a rag and the Fox News print arm of their GOP propaganda operation that should never be compared to any reputable publication, but the Times should be thriving for excellence and disseminating facts, not unqualified opinion in the pursuit of some misguided notion of editorial democracy.
Otherwise, they should hire me. Yes, seriously. They could and have been doing much worse.
