The New York Times allows comments on some of their articles and editorials — after review. Among the criteria comments are subjected to is this:
1. What kind of comments are The New York Times interested in?
We are interested in articulate, well-informed remarks that are relevant to the article. We welcome your advice, criticism, and unique insights into the issues of the day.
To be approved for publication, your comments should be civil and reflect The New York Times’s standards for taste present on NYTimes.com and in The New York Times newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: name-calling, personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, and SHOUTING.
We only accept comments written in English; foreign language comments will be rejected.
emphasis added
While they do not specifically say so, I suspect they have a problem with snark as well. Mind you, this is the newspaper that was unable to use the word “lie” for four years in categorizing statements by the former guy, but they did remain civil at all times. Priorities must be kept.
I confess that one of my vices is submitting comments. There’s an addictive pleasure when other readers recommend them highly, and especially if The NY Times singles them out as a Times Pick.
However, I’ve also noted that sometimes my comments are not approved until hours after submission, and sometimes they do not appear at all. Case in point — one I submitted the other day that sank without a trace as far as I know. (It’s the quotes in italics below.)
A regular feature in the Opinion section is The Conversation, in which Gail Collins and Bret Stephens exchange views with each other, to the mutual amusement of both. I hypothesize the Times does this to demonstrate that it is possible for people of opposing political views to engage in polite conversation. (It also helps when they are getting paid to do so.)
Their most recent pas de deux was a broad-ranging discussion under the headline Trump Missed the Part About No Do-Overs. After wishing their former colleague Nick Kristof well in his run to be governor of Oregon, they started off by discussing Trump’s obsession with the 2020 election:
...Moving from the inspiring to the debased, what do you think the chances are that Mitch McConnell or Kevin McCarthy will ever challenge Donald Trump on his claims of election fraud?
Gail: Well, about the same as my chances of competing in the next Olympics.
Bret: Your chances are better.
Gail: Watching the rally Trump had recently in Iowa, I was sort of fascinated by his apparent inability to focus on anything but the last election. Don’t think a 2020 do-over is at the top of anybody else’s list of priorities.
If there is anyone in the Republican Party who is NOT calling for a do-over of the 2020 election and is NOT using the Big Lie as an excuse to make sure the 2024 election will be called in favor of the former guy, it would be news. Apparently neither Collins nor Stephens have noticed this. It was one of the items that moved me to comment.
I suspect it will be irrelevant what the two Macs (McCarthy and McConnell) think about Trump's litmus test. It's an article of faith among his base, and it's being pushed 24/7 by Fox News, OAN, etc.
Stephens offered a further comment and then pivoted to slam Biden. (Of course.)
Bret: It would be nice to think that his obsession with 2020 is solely a function of his personal insecurities. But there’s a strategy involved here, which is hard to describe as anything less than sinister. Within the Republican Party, he’s making the stolen-election fantasy a litmus test, which Republican politicians defy at the peril of either being primaried by a Trump toady or losing vital Trump voters in close elections. At the national level, he’s creating a new “stab-in-the-back myth” to undermine the legitimacy of democracy itself.
Of course, Joe Biden’s job performance so far isn’t helping things.
That led me to continue my comment with the following observation.
It's curious that Brett Stephens brings up Trump's Big Lie about the stolen election undermining democracy and equates it with a new "Stab in the Back" Big Lie. The link goes to an article describing how Joe Manchin is sabotaging Biden's climate initiatives - which is true and not a lie - but the original Stab in the Back myth refers to how Hitler blamed Jews for stabbing Germany in the back - which was false.
link added
Now here’s where things get interesting. When I first read the piece by Collins and Stephens, the link took me to the article cited about Manchin — but checking now, it actually goes to another Stephens commentary in which he does make that direct connection, to his credit. Was the original link a Freudian slip on someone’s part? — because Manchin is effectively stabbing his own party in the back…
Possibly that’s why my comment was rejected — because I was referring to what was probably an error that was later corrected. (If so, no note about it on the web version.)
But let me not give Stephens too much credit. In his piece Trump Contrives His Stab-in-the-Back Myth, Stephens throws in this disclaimer:
In case certain readers think I’m making a comparison between Trump supporters and Nazis, let me emphasize that I am not. What I am saying is that this modern-day Dolchstosslegende, like surf pounding against a bluff, abets future demagogues by eroding public confidence in democratic institutions, until, unprotected, they collapse.
emphasis added
I had unwittingly anticipated this with an aside I included in my comment on the Collins/Stephens commentary:
(Has anyone noticed Godwin's Law no longer applies to discussions about the current state of American politics and the GOP? That's what happens when the comparisons are no longer overheated rhetoric, but are increasingly fact-based.)
For those not familiar with Godwin’s Law, it refers to the likelihood of Hitler turning up in any internet debate that goes on long enough, with the corollary that the first person to make a Hitler comparison has effectively lost the argument. Godwin later clarified that to exclude discussions that involve actual Nazis.
In December 2015, Godwin commented on the Nazi and fascist comparisons being made by several articles about Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, saying: "If you're thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler when you talk about Trump, or any other politician."[12] In August 2017, Godwin made similar remarks on social networking websites Facebook and Twitter with respect to the two previous days' Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, endorsing and encouraging comparisons of its alt-right organizers to Nazis.[13][14][15][16]
This post by ShowerCap would probably give the comment reviewers at The NY Times conniptions.
Collins and Stephens bounced off a few more topics. At one point Stephens offered up this gem:
Gail: I’ll refrain from pointing out that Sinema appears to be the captive of big-donor business interests and that the climate change part of Biden’s bill is now under pressure because of Manchin’s ties to Big Coal.
Instead, remind me how you came around to be on the side of Big Spending.
Bret: I love your concept of “refraining.”
In my perfect world, the federal government would be about one-third the size that it is today and we would privatize and regulate functions like the post office, Amtrak and Social Security. But we live with the reality of big government and a Democratic presidency, so I’d prefer my tax dollars to go into investments that produce blue-collar jobs in the short term and long-term returns in public utilization. Plus, a lot of our infrastructure could really use a major upgrade: Just think of New Jersey.
emphasis added
Stephens got a lot of flak in comments for that howler.
Regarding Manchin and Sinema, I tossed in this. Does this constitute uncivil name-calling?
Speaking of Senator for Coal Manchin and Senator for Herself Sinema, they aren't just undermining Biden's agenda on infrastructure, energy, and safety net measures. Their fetish over keeping the filibuster means Manchin's own voting bill won't pass.
Willful blindness or cynical calculation?
Among other things, Collins and Stephens get into a back and forth over Biden’s support for unions, and the strikes that are now popping up. I offered this observation:
As for labor unrest being Biden's problem, it's another heads GOP wins - tails Dems lose scenario.
Just as the GOP periodically wrecks the economy, decades of the GOP war on workers are creating a labor crisis. Dems get stuck cleaning up yet another mess the GOP has made - and getting the blame for it.
The GOP should be subjected to RICO laws.
Now, I’ll probably never know why my comment was not published — the reference to the linked article that was later changed may be the reason. But, I do have to wonder just what The NY Times thinks is civil — and what isn’t.
Especially after the four-year ordeal we went through, and the assaults to come.