Yesterday, Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton had an op-ed posted in the New York Times which caused the Hershey squirts to hit the fan in the New York Times newsroom.

Earlier in the week, Cotton had advocated deploying Regular Army units to assist hard-pressed, and some profoundly incompetent and compromised, police departments is quelling rioting. While tradition dictates that this only happens at the indication of the governor of a state, the president has undisputed authority to do just that by invoking the Insurrection Act. As the correlation between virulently anti-Trump governors and the severity of rioting is nearly 100%, one could be excused for thinking that some of them are perfectly willing to let their cities be torched if they perceive the side benefit of damaging Trump politically.

Cotton’s op-ed merely followed up on that and pointed out the obvious, that when local authorities can’t handle the enforcement of the law, the federal government must step in.

READ: New York Times Reporters Befoul Themselves Over an Tom Cotton Op-Ed

The reaction by New York Times staffers was one of horror, this is live video from within the newsroom as the op-ed went live

What transpired was just what one would expect from an ‘journalistic’ enterprise that pushed the vilest collection of unfounded and unsubstantiated rumors in an attempt to destroy the Trump presidency: they folded.

NEW: Times spokeswoman sends mea culpa pic.twitter.com/phBVjA21AT

— marc tracy (@marcatracy) June 4, 2020

We’ve examined the piece and the process leading up to its publication. This review made clear that a rushed editorial process led to the publication of an Op-Ed that did not meet our standards. As a result, we’re planning to examine both short term and long term changes, to include expanding our fact checking operation and reducing the number of Op-Eds we publish.

An op-ed by a US Senator advocating bringing and end to violence by a method approved of by a clear majority of Americans did not meet the New York Times’s standards.

Bari Weiss, an op-ed writer for the NYT who has been the victim of an attempt to cancel her, offered this explanation. It turned out to be nothing but an excuse which, in the end, shows that she, herself, is as deeply compromised in her hostility to free speech as the people she criticizes. But still it is worth the read:

The Old Guard lives by a set of principles we can broadly call civil libertarianism. They assumed they shared that worldview with the young people they hired who called themselves liberals and progressives. But it was an incorrect assumption.

— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) June 4, 2020

Perhaps the cleanest example of this dynamic was in 2018, when David Remnick, under tremendous public pressure from his staffers, disinvited Steve Bannon from appearing on stage at the New Yorker Ideas Festival. But there are dozens and dozens of examples.

— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) June 4, 2020

I'm in no way surprised by what has now exploded into public view. In a way, it's oddly comforting: I feel less alone and less crazy trying to explain the dynamic to people. What I am shocked by is the speed. I thought it would take a few years, not a few weeks.

— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) June 4, 2020

W/r/t Tom Cotton's oped and the choice to run it: I agree with our critics that it's a dodge to say "we want a totally open marketplace of ideas!" There are limits. Obviously. The question is: does his view fall outside those limits? Maybe the answer is yes.

— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) June 4, 2020

If the answer is yes, it means that the view of more than half of Americans are unacceptable. And perhaps they are. https://t.co/2zltJkLXE3

— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) June 4, 2020

The problem here is only partially what she states. The underlying cause is a gutless and feckless management that has abrogated its authority to a mob that really doesn’t care about the fate of the New York Times. That would be their reporters. This kind of corporate rot doesn’t exist without the active assistance of a management class that is more interested in being one of the ‘cool kids’ and currying favor than in focusing on the mission and the bottom line. There is literally zero skill set hired by the New York Times that can’t be found in great quantities by advertising for positions and no reason anyone should have to kowtow to this kind of juvenile fascism. The fact that the Times has allowed reporters and columnists to be fired or not hired based on the loudest voices in that mob in the past has made the mob louder and more bloodthirsty. It will only get worse.

What this incident has shown us is that the New York Times will not only lie to bring down a president they dislike, they will take an active role in attempting to prevent the US government from protecting the lives and property of its citizens. And the mob in their newsroom will unhesitatingly take the side of the mob in the street.