NY Times editorial defends China's policies in Hong Kong

[Santander]

... The NY Times has become a total disgrace

I immediately clicked on the link, almost certain it was going to be an opinion piece.
LOL.
Right above the title of the article, in big-enough letters, it clearly says "Opinion."

What is so wrong with The NYT publishing an opinion piece?
This is what newspapers do (even in the "older days" on print/paper).
They are interesting to read, regardless of one's personal stance on the matter.
Geeesh.

bruh tho u gotta think if uhhhh if this person who wrote it loves China so much why don't they move there am i right?

She lives there, lol.

[Zohranism is OUR future]

It's an opinion column, not their official stance.

However, it's also vile and the paper looks completely ridiculous for letting James Bennet get pushed out over the Cotton piece only to print this weeks later. Younger staffers who want the paper to be committed to a more activist liberalism are showing some very obvious blind spots.

Agreed, NYT should be more welcoming of controversial opinions, not less.
The double standard is annoying from the paper as well.

[Big Abraham]

That's a lie

This is an opinion piece by a single person.

If you can't see the tendency at-large with NYT's editorial board, then you aren't paying enough attention. Not only is the Times bloated with op-eds, all of which are generally cut from the same liberal pseudo-journalistic cloth, you will also notice that they are positioned very prominently at the top of their website, usually with some clickbait-y Buzzfeed-esque headline. To act like this kind of thing isn't indicative of an overall trend is disingenuous, to say the least

[HisGrace]

Normally I'm a big defender of outlets publishing controversial content by saying that publishing or hosting something doesn't equate an endorsement. But NYT doesn't get to use that defense anymore after how they handled the Cotton thing. That was retracted purely because their staffers didn't agree with it, so apparently they must agree with this since there's no retraction.

[Joseph Cao]

Nice.
If you were supporting the “law and order” federal troops here, you should also support Beijing’s actions in HK (ftr I support both)
Otherwise you are a blatant hypocrite.

What a false equivalency

You're probably not wrong there. But speaking as a close follower of nearly a year of the Hong Kong protests on the ground, followed by months of the brouhaha here, it's been very very very strange to watch a bunch of people who fully supported the Hong Kong protesters' goals and tactics turn around and parrot the CCP's talking points nearly verbatim against BLM protesters' goals and tactics.

[Beet]

The Tom Cotton piece was fine, and this piece is fine too. The Cotton cancellation thing was worse because he's a sitting elected U.S. Senator, for chrissake's, whereas Regina Ip is a foreign legislator.

But the Times and any other outlet should occasionally publish pieces from viewpoints and governments deemed risible, if they are significant. It would be great if they could occasionally publish pieces from the Russian government, Iranian government, and even, for instance, the North Korea ambassador to the UN. And yes, the Hong Kong government.

What is ironic is that some of those who are against cancel culture are basically saying that certain opinions are so dangerous that merely allowing them to be read is an unacceptable affront. Further, they are obliterating the very thing that supposedly provides the US the moral high ground over China to begin with-- our free and open society.

At least the SJWs who want to cancel everyone are more consistent here.

[R.P. McM]

The Tom Cotton piece was fine, and this piece is fine too. The Cotton cancellation thing was worse because he's a sitting elected U.S. Senator, for chrissake's, whereas Regina Ip is a foreign legislator.

But the Times and any other outlet should occasionally publish pieces from viewpoints and governments deemed risible, if they are significant. It would be great if they could occasionally publish pieces from the Russian government, Iranian government, and even, for instance, the North Korea ambassador to the UN. And yes, the Hong Kong government.

What is ironic is that some of those who are against cancel culture are basically saying that certain opinions are so dangerous that merely allowing them to be read is an unacceptable affront. Further, they are obliterating the very thing that supposedly provides the US the moral high ground over China to begin with-- our free and open society.

At least the SJWs who want to cancel everyone are more consistent here.

Nailed it. The only thing I would add is a few caveats to the bolded part. Obviously, no journalistic purpose is served in disseminating wholly fictitious, Baghdad Bob-grade propaganda. So the sort of foreign opinion dispatch that might merit publication ought to be centered around a reasonable difference of opinion. Say, a Russian take on the relationship between post-Cold War NATO expansion and the country's recent bouts of territorial aggression.     

[urutzizu]

Should be said this was a two part piece where there was one from the perspective of the rioters (by Nathan Law) and one from the Government (by Regina Ip).

Regina Ip is actually fairly moderate and balanced in her assessment for pro-beijing camp terms:

The Hong Kong government has not been able to resolve in recent years any of the city’s main challenges, let alone restore public trust or win back hearts and minds.

Foreign governments should not benchmark what happens in Hong Kong against standards that prevail in Western countries; those are governed by a political system entirely different from China’s. Instead, they should benchmark Hong Kong against the rest of China, and measure how the city can maintain its unique characteristics — openness, a commitment to personal rights and freedoms, respect for the rule of law and the ability to reinvent itself economically.

Law's piece less so tbh.

This is hardly some sort of wholly unprecedented thing either. Similarly after the Tiananmen Square Massacre, the Chinese Ambassador was given the opportunity to present the perspective of the Central Government's perspective: https://www.nytimes.com/1989/08/21/opinion/the-chinese-ambassadors-version.html
It does beg the Question, there doesn't appear to have been such a knee-jerk then, so why now? Similar pieces also are also common in European newspapers, so why is isn't there one here? Why have some Americans become so insecure about the supremacy of their political system?

[The Righteous Tip of the Abundance Spear]

Nice.
If you were supporting the “law and order” federal troops here, you should also support Beijing’s actions in HK (ftr I support both)
Otherwise you are a blatant hypocrite.

What a false equivalency

Why?
Is it false because anarchist BLM protestors are destroying private property and Hong Kong protestors are definitely going out of their way to not hurt small businesses?
https://reuters.com/article/idUSKBN1X001P

Is it because the authoritarian Chinese cops are severely injuring peaceful protestors?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/police-keep-using-force-against-peaceful-protesters-prompting-sustained-criticism-about-tactics-and-training/2020/06/03/5d2f51d4-a5cf-11ea-bb20-ebf0921f3bbd_story.html%3foutputType=amp

Look, just say you support one over the other for geopolitical/jingoistic reasons, as long as you don’t pretend to have some moral high ground, I don’t care.

Holy s**t just join the fifty cent army already. If you're going to be an apologist for dictatorships you might as well get paid for it.

[Mr. Illini]

That's a lie

This is an opinion piece by a single person.

If you can't see the tendency at-large with NYT's editorial board, then you aren't paying enough attention. Not only is the Times bloated with op-eds, all of which are generally cut from the same liberal pseudo-journalistic cloth, you will also notice that they are positioned very prominently at the top of their website, usually with some clickbait-y Buzzfeed-esque headline. To act like this kind of thing isn't indicative of an overall trend is disingenuous, to say the least

None of this means anything. OSR didn’t critique NYT because they are prominently featuring an op-Ed that is pro-CCP. He claimed that it was an editorial, which is just false and the difference means a lot.

I’m about as anti-CCP as it comes, but this is ridiculous. Grasping at straws to lay the groundwork for a Trump vote next month, perhaps.

[OSR stands with Israel]

That's a lie

This is an opinion piece by a single person.

If you can't see the tendency at-large with NYT's editorial board, then you aren't paying enough attention. Not only is the Times bloated with op-eds, all of which are generally cut from the same liberal pseudo-journalistic cloth, you will also notice that they are positioned very prominently at the top of their website, usually with some clickbait-y Buzzfeed-esque headline. To act like this kind of thing isn't indicative of an overall trend is disingenuous, to say the least

None of this means anything. OSR didn’t critique NYT because they are prominently featuring an op-Ed that is pro-CCP. He claimed that it was an editorial, which is just false and the difference means a lot.

I’m about as anti-CCP as it comes, but this is ridiculous. Grasping at straws to lay the groundwork for a Trump vote next month, perhaps.

My title didn’t have editorial at first , it was added in by a mod ,

[Hammy]

Do you realize what editorials are? Do you realize they also ran one from Tom Cotton who advocated murdering civilians with military intervention against protesters, something most R's here applauded?

[HisGrace]

Do you realize what editorials are? Do you realize they also ran one from Tom Cotton who advocated murdering civilians with military intervention against protesters, something most R's here applauded?

Which they subsequently retracted when a bunch of their staffers through public hissy fits about it. But they are apparently 100% fine with this or else it would have been retracted as well. The NYT doesn't get to hide behind saying they don't personally endorse the content of their editorials after how they handled that situation.

[Bootes Void]

The op-ed is kind of a joke here, but the Times is still a very good newspaper overall.

Not really. Most decent newspapers are generally local. NYT does have issues with their reporting

[politics_king]

China Sucks. Hong Kong made a mistake giving over their right to the CCP. 'Nuff said.

[Lucius Cornelius Sulla Felix]

Portland — No amount of outcry, condemnation or sanctions over the American government’s purported encroachment in Portland’s affairs will alter the fact that Portland is part of America and that its destiny is intertwined with the heartland.
Portland has been rocked by a series of crises after the eruption of protests this summer after the drug overdose of George Floyd in Minneapolis.
Portlanders who wanted the city promptly to return to peace thought the authorities’ handling of the situation, which dragged on for months and grew more and more violent, was incompetent. For other locals, many outsiders and apparently much of the global media, a people’s legitimate quest for racial equity was being suppressed.
Something had to be done, and President Trump did it.
The scale and frequency of antigovernment protests has now subsided — thanks to a national security law for Portland promulgated in Washington on September 30.
Several prominent BLM advocates have since announced their retirement from politics, disbanded their parties.
Liberals tend to glorify these people as defenders of racial equity, but they have done great harm to the city by going against its constitutional order and stirring up chaos and disaffection toward our fatherland.

[Alcibiades]

Do you realize what editorials are? Do you realize they also ran one from Tom Cotton who advocated murdering civilians with military intervention against protesters, something most R's here applauded?

To be fair, neither of those were editorials. They were op-eds. (I.e. they didn’t express the views of the paper.)

[R.P. McM]

Portland — No amount of outcry, condemnation or sanctions over the American government’s purported encroachment in Portland’s affairs will alter the fact that Portland is part of America and that its destiny is intertwined with the heartland.
Portland has been rocked by a series of crises after the eruption of protests this summer after the drug overdose of George Floyd in Minneapolis.
Portlanders who wanted the city promptly to return to peace thought the authorities’ handling of the situation, which dragged on for months and grew more and more violent, was incompetent. For other locals, many outsiders and apparently much of the global media, a people’s legitimate quest for racial equity was being suppressed.
Something had to be done, and President Trump did it.
The scale and frequency of antigovernment protests has now subsided — thanks to a national security law for Portland promulgated in Washington on September 30.
Several prominent BLM advocates have since announced their retirement from politics, disbanded their parties.
Liberals tend to glorify these people as defenders of racial equity, but they have done great harm to the city by going against its constitutional order and stirring up chaos and disaffection toward our fatherland.

Why don't you just come out and say it? You're not fooling anyone, you might as well own up to what you actually believe. I'd have a lot more respect for white supremacists if they actually stated their case. Not much respect, mind you. But at least I wouldn't have to dismiss y'all as habitual liars.

[PSOL]

China Sucks. Hong Kong made a mistake giving over their right to the CCP. 'Nuff said.

Well, China now is getting worse as the line is starting to get diminished returns from harsh beginnings of no return that was the return of reaktion since 1979. The CCP brought this on themselves for becoming corporatist hacks as a collective.

They let reform fall into the hands of multinationals’ spokespeople and crappy Confucian Crapitalists, and this is the effect of that. Now they can follow theory and go back in part to what worked now that they have productive forces, or risk possible collapse in their quest to become an imperialist hegemon.

[TrendsareUsuallyReal]

You are an ignoramus. This is not the NYT Editorial Board's opinion.

[RussFeingoldWasRobbed]

You are an ignoramus. This is not the NYT Editorial Board's opinion.

Okay but they deleted cottons op ed. It looks hackish

[dead0man]

You are an ignoramus. This is not the NYT Editorial Board's opinion.

whoa, calling a mod an ignoramus is brave sir.  Good on you.

[HillGoose]

... The NY Times has become a total disgrace

I immediately clicked on the link, almost certain it was going to be an opinion piece.
LOL.
Right above the title of the article, in big-enough letters, it clearly says "Opinion."

What is so wrong with The NYT publishing an opinion piece?
This is what newspapers do (even in the "older days" on print/paper).
They are interesting to read, regardless of one's personal stance on the matter.
Geeesh.

bruh tho u gotta think if uhhhh if this person who wrote it loves China so much why don't they move there am i right?

She lives there, lol.

bruh moment

[Santander]

... The NY Times has become a total disgrace

I immediately clicked on the link, almost certain it was going to be an opinion piece.
LOL.
Right above the title of the article, in big-enough letters, it clearly says "Opinion."

What is so wrong with The NYT publishing an opinion piece?
This is what newspapers do (even in the "older days" on print/paper).
They are interesting to read, regardless of one's personal stance on the matter.
Geeesh.

bruh tho u gotta think if uhhhh if this person who wrote it loves China so much why don't they move there am i right?

She lives there, lol.

bruh moment

Occasional consequence of persistent trolling.