NYT Op Ed by Anonymous Senior WH official

Jump to Last Post 1-2 of 2 discussions (17 posts)
  1. jackclee lm profile image78
    jackclee lmposted 6 years ago

    Did the NYT just violated its own Op Ed policy of naming the author?
    Where does this insanity ends?
    A renown newspaper is now acting like yellow jounalism.
    What’s next?
    How about printing a rumor?
    “All The News That’s Fit To Print” is just a joke.

    I think Trump is right on this one. Unveil the writer of this piece.
    He or She is gutless.

    1. jackclee lm profile image78
      jackclee lmposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Here is the article -
      https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opin … tance.html

      If this is true, and there is no reason to doubt it, the term drain the swamp has reached new heights. Drain the sledge.

      1. jackclee lm profile image78
        jackclee lmposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Here is the NYT Op Ed policy...

        ========================================


        Thank you for your letter to The New York Times.

        If your letter is selected for publication — in all editions (print and online) or only online, and possibly in The International New York Times as well — we will contact you within a week. We regret that because of the large number of submissions we are not able to respond to all of them, other than by this automated reply.

        Here are some guidelines:

        Letters should ideally be 150 to 200 words and may be shortened to fit allotted space. They must be exclusive to The Times (no prior publication in other news outlets, except for nytimes.com). They should generally refer to an article that has appeared within the last seven days.

        We reserve the right to edit all letters, and to trim to fit allotted space.

        To be considered for publication, letters MUST include the writer’s name, address, current location (where you are writing from) and daytime  and evening phone numbers at your current location (for verification, not publication). We do not accept anonymous or open letters.

        We generally do not publish more than one letter from the same writer within any 60-day period, but reserve the right to be flexible. (This applies to the daily letters page, but feel free to submit letters to the weekly sections.) If we select your letter for publication, you consent to our right to republish it, in any and all media, and to license third parties to publish it as well.

        If you submit your contact information as a result of this automated reply, please re-send the letter with it. (In the subject line, please indicate the headline of the article you’re  responding to, and delete "automated reply.’’) You will receive an auto-reply only once every four days.

        Because of computer security concerns, we do NOT accept attachments; they will NOT be opened. Please re-submit your letter pasted into the body of an e-mail message.

        To reach the Reader Center: readercenter@nytimes.com

        To request corrections in news articles: nytnews@nytimes.com
        Other letters asserting factual errors will be sent to the appropriate editors.

        A 2004 essay by Thomas Feyer, the letters editor:

        http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/23/opini … dated.html

        A 2017 "Inside The Times" article about Thomas Feyer and letters:

        https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/insi … -back.html

        . . . and on June 22, 2017:

        https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/22/insi … d=fb-share



        Letters submitted for publication in other sections may be sent directly to these addresses:

        books@nytimes.com (Book Review, on Sunday)
        diary@nytimes.com (Metropolitan Diary, on Monday)
        magazine@nytimes.com (Sunday)
        modernlove@nytimes.com (Sunday)
        obits@nytimes.com
        oped@nytimes.com (Op-Ed submissions, not letters)
        society@nytimes.com (weddings)
        sports@nytimes.com
        travelmail@nytimes.com (Sunday)

        If you are responding to an online forum, you may submit a comment directly to that forum.

        For more information on how to contact The Times, please visit: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/membercenter … tory.html.

        MEDIA INQUIRIES:

        http://www.nytco.com/contact-us/

        MISCELLANEOUS:

        Back copies: (800) 543-5380

        Reprints: www.nytreprints.com

        Job opportunities: hrresume@nytimes.com

        NY Times FAQ: www.nytimes.com/faq

        Rights and permissions: 212-221-9595 x129

        Thank you for writing, and for reading The Times.

        -30-

    2. RJ Schwartz profile image87
      RJ Schwartzposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      This election season will be a lengthy series of "firsts" Jack - sad that the Democratic Party of the old days has clearly been hijacked by radicals who have a "win at all costs" mentality - we are in for a wild ride!

    3. Carolyn M Fields profile image80
      Carolyn M Fieldsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I read the actual Op Ed piece, rather than just listening to the discussion about it. I have to say . . . reluctantly . . . that it's not really all that bad.
      WAIT. Hear me out. The author is basically saying the "cooler heads prevail" in the White House. I recall one line about there being "adults in the room." In other words - relax. The world will continue to spin in the correct direction, the sun will rise in the East and set in the West. Don't panic. That was my take. Now . . . the discussion about it is insane and completely over the top. I just can't listen any more.

      1. Carolyn M Fields profile image80
        Carolyn M Fieldsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Here is the actual Op Ed piece:

        I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.
        Sept. 5, 2018
        The Times today is taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous Op-Ed essay. We have done so at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure. We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers. We invite you to submit a question about the essay or our vetting process here.
        President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.
        It’s not just that the special counsel looms large. Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership. Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.
        The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.
        I would know. I am one of them.
        To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.
        9/6/2018 Opinion | I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration - The New York Times
        https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opin … tance.html 2/5
        But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.

        That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.
        The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.
        Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.
        In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.
        Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.
        But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.
        From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.
        Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, illinformed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.

        “There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier.
        The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.
        It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.
        The result is a two-track presidency.
        Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations.
        Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals.
        On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.
        This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.

        Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.
        The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility.
        Senator John McCain put it best in his farewell letter. All Americans should heed his words and break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim of uniting through our shared values and love of this great nation.


        We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example — a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue. Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.
        There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first. But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans.
        The writer is a senior official in the Trump administration.
        Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion).

      2. jackclee lm profile image78
        jackclee lmposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Carolyn, I read it too and I have no problem with the content either. What I object to is the title of the piece-"I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration" and the fact who ever wrote it, did not put his name to it. Perhaps that was not the author's doing but the NYT staff adding its 2 cents. In either case, it is a bad precedence to allow anonymous Op Ed, IMHO.

        1. Carolyn M Fields profile image80
          Carolyn M Fieldsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

          I think you are right about the title. That's usually something the editors come up with - and yes - they were trying to be incendiary. I also agree that allowing "anonymous" op ed articles is a very, very bad precendent. The most obvious problem (to me) is there is no way to challenge or reply to the opinion. It's just "out there" - with no chance to verify anything. Bad. Very, very bad.

          1. jackclee lm profile image78
            jackclee lmposted 6 years agoin reply to this

            I am afraid our freedom of the press is under assault. When you can’t even trust the NYT to do the right thing? Who can you trust? I often wonder WWCD? What Would Cronkite Do? He was liberal leaning but you would never guessed in his nihtly news reports.

    4. Carolyn M Fields profile image80
      Carolyn M Fieldsposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I've had a chance to "sleep on it," and now I am wondering if the author is actually who he/she claims to be. It could be anyone in and around the White House - not even a "senior" staff member. It could even be an "anonymous" writer at the NYT, making up the entire thing just to sell papers and generate controversy. We, the public, have no way to know, since the author will not step forward. Which is wrong. Just wrong.

    5. Credence2 profile image80
      Credence2posted 6 years agoin reply to this

      I probably would not support a venerable news source such as the New York Times appearing to take a side in this matter, without something a bit more substantive.

      And, Yes, I don't like Trump but I will not use the under handed  tactics found as standard equipment in his tool box to bring him down. If he falls, it will be by his own doing, publishing anonymous OP-eds may be going beyond the pale

      If I wanted to get Trump we do it fairly and ethically, in that way he stays "got".

      1. jackclee lm profile image78
        jackclee lmposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        Credence, good for you. I totally agree.

    6. jackclee lm profile image78
      jackclee lmposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      It occured to me it would be easy for President Trump to identify this person. He just need to announce to all his senior officials to vow a statement under oath that they did not write the piece. The one person who does not sign is the only culprit.
      A Solomon moment...

      1. jackclee lm profile image78
        jackclee lmposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        A side benefit is to see what the NYT do in this case. Since they know who the individual is, if the person Trump identified is not the real person, then they would have to step forward and say so. One by one, one way or another, the person would be revealed.
        What was he or she thinking?
        Can this ever be kept silent?
        Can anyone really trust the NYT to keep a secret?

  2. Live to Learn profile image60
    Live to Learnposted 6 years ago

    This entire episode of 'I hate Trump' has gone over the deep end. I would like to think the end of his presidency would mark the end of Americans going bonkers when their candidate loses, but I fear this is just the beginning.

    1. jackclee lm profile image78
      jackclee lmposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      You are absolutely correct. This will not end well...
      One way to think about this is what if?
      What if the NYT has published a similar piece during the Obama Administration? Would the people react the same way.

      In my own case, the answer is absolutely yes.
      This is a first Amendment issue.

      1. Live to Learn profile image60
        Live to Learnposted 6 years agoin reply to this

        I don't see it as a first amendment issue as much as a credibility problem. The media is refusing to understand why their credibility is under fire and appears completely ambivalent about it.  The public has followed suit.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)