You're viewing a single thread.
I think people are confused about what the "Opinion" page is. While i disagree with him, why would the times be accountable for opinion pieces?
Because they publish it and promote the opinion?
And they will have opinion pieces showing the other side too.
If the new York times posts an opinion price praising Lugi as a working class hero I will buy a hat and eat it.
Saved.
Kinda hard to actually praise someone who murdered someone else, justified or not. If you feel that Luigi was justified in doing what he did, then you shouldn't have any qualms about going and doing it yourself.
Evidently you aren't, there would be articles in the times of you did 😂
That would the depend on the person who writes the opinion, not the news paper. There are several essays in the opinion section that discussed the morals of what happened. I bet that if someone from Lemmy sent their thought piece, they'd be all over it 😄
News papers don’t publish every opinion sent. They select a few. They have probably been sent hundreds and thrown most of them in the trash. They chose to publish this trash piece.
Do you have an example in the specific case?
LOL.
Are you saying they don't pay him? This isn't a letter to the editor you know.
So by that logic, if you were an employer and your employee broke the law, you as the employer would be held accountable?
Thats the level of culpability that you imply. He who wrote the article is responsible for his opinion. Not the times.
Lolwut? That's not how that works. If I broke the law as part of my job, then yeah my employer would be held accountable as an accomplice and facilitator of the crime.
He is doing his job writing for the Times, what is and isn't labeled an opinion is merely a stylistic choice because everything gets an editorial second look before it is published anyway, it's not some free platform like Reddit where any random Ivan from Petrozavodsk can share his opinion on e-vote cybersecurity in Michigan.
I'm guessing you were born after the internet, and I mean this in the nicest way possible but internet platforms are largely an exception when it comes to whether a publisher is responsible for the content they choose to publish.
See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_230
Prior to the Internet, case law was clear that a liability line was drawn between publishers of content and distributors of content; a publisher would be expected to have awareness of material it was publishing and thus should be held liable for any illegal content it published
To me this is very sound logic and basis of law regarding responsibility, obviously no laws were broken here but if we're discussing whether the new york times is characterized by the content they choose to publish, the answer is a pretty resounding yes.
Respondeat superior.
Because their only opinions are a mixture of imperial propaganda and pure trash.
Opinion articles are the opinions of the NYT staff. You're thinking of op-eds.