Anyway, here is what I wrote to The Economist: about the James Bennett piece:
"I think the essay is quite good. Thank you for it.
If I might add a note about the Cotton op-ed and the 1619 project. To me, the difference between an "op-ed" and a "project" is significant. An "op-ed" is a writing opposite from the editorial page where one would hope to find a wide variety of views -- especially when the editors themselves share similar views (as with the NYT).
A "project" is an effort planned to achieve a particular goal. The NYT said its goal was to "reframe American history." Since a newspaper's job is to report news I don't think it should have such goals at all. For example, printing anything inconsistent with the goal would necessarily undermine the project. So readers are cut off from inconsistent news and views.
As for the 1619 project specifically, I do not agree that it was excellent. It was and is totally one-sided. And it was fundamentally wrong in many respects, some of which were compiled in Mary Grabar's book (although I don't think she's right about the Hemings-Jefferson subject). And putting aside how one might look back at the Founding Fathers, the project's depictions of Abraham Lincoln and even Frederick Douglass are unbalanced at best.
But recognizing any of this would undercut the goal of the project. Hence the basic problem."
JVL and All:
I somehow missed this post when it came out.
Anyway, here is what I wrote to The Economist: about the James Bennett piece:
"I think the essay is quite good. Thank you for it.
If I might add a note about the Cotton op-ed and the 1619 project. To me, the difference between an "op-ed" and a "project" is significant. An "op-ed" is a writing opposite from the editorial page where one would hope to find a wide variety of views -- especially when the editors themselves share similar views (as with the NYT).
A "project" is an effort planned to achieve a particular goal. The NYT said its goal was to "reframe American history." Since a newspaper's job is to report news I don't think it should have such goals at all. For example, printing anything inconsistent with the goal would necessarily undermine the project. So readers are cut off from inconsistent news and views.
As for the 1619 project specifically, I do not agree that it was excellent. It was and is totally one-sided. And it was fundamentally wrong in many respects, some of which were compiled in Mary Grabar's book (although I don't think she's right about the Hemings-Jefferson subject). And putting aside how one might look back at the Founding Fathers, the project's depictions of Abraham Lincoln and even Frederick Douglass are unbalanced at best.
But recognizing any of this would undercut the goal of the project. Hence the basic problem."
And for something completely different, IMHO this is the greatest Christmas song/video of all time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTx-sdR6Yzk
Merry Christmas to all!
Steve