NYT published an op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton promoting sending in troops to deal with protests. Many, including lots of those who work at the paper, were very upset at this. They basically said it was a form of incitement that the paper should not publish. The argument on the other side is that he is major figure, promoting an idea of many people and the op-ed page includes opinions of people we can strongly find disagreeable, especially if they are major figures. It doesn't mean, a lot of simplistic comments, any moron gets to vent.
I find this position reasonable, but many of the people I follow online disagree. Anyway, the NYT now says they did not properly vet the thing, which makes them look like morons. I saw some comment on the shoddy nature of Cotton's argument though that can be said about a lot of op-eds. But, what I saw early on was focused on Cotton's message. I think it is worthwhile to put that out there with a strong reply. The quality of an op-ed does matter and just providing op-eds without correction at some point just is not a good idea. To me, there seems to be a basic floor there as a good editorial judgment.
Anyway, I took a Big V test (nasal swab) and antibody (blood) and the results from my Wed. 6PM test in a walk-in clinic a few blocks away came in this morning. No antibody, which I was told was only somewhat of a "safe call" (my term). Not too surprised since I have mostly isolated myself, including avoiding public transportation though now and then felt a bit blah.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!