The Page One Editorial
December 4, 2015 8:28 PM Subscribe
For the first time since 1920, The New York Times is running a front page editorial.
It's been nearly a century since an editorial made the front page of the NYT. And they want you to know what a big deal this is.
Front page editorials remain a relatively uncommon practice, but are far more common among local newspapers than national newspapers.
The trend came to attention again in 2007, 2011, as well as earlier this year.
It's been nearly a century since an editorial made the front page of the NYT. And they want you to know what a big deal this is.
Front page editorials remain a relatively uncommon practice, but are far more common among local newspapers than national newspapers.
The trend came to attention again in 2007, 2011, as well as earlier this year.
This post was deleted for the following reason: Sorry, on reflection, as-framed this is going to just be a continual tug of war about what subjects belong in this thread vs the active gun control thread... if you'd like to do a post on page-one editorials that's framed in a way that makes the editorial-history angle more clearly the focus, it would be fine to repost. Hit us up at the contact form if you'd like to discuss. -- LobsterMitten
Then I'm not sure it's worth doing this. It's going to be impossible to be that careful about the actual content and there's not all that much to say about the history of editorials on front pages.
posted by Miko at 8:37 PM on December 4, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Miko at 8:37 PM on December 4, 2015 [4 favorites]
I think this is a worthy FPP.
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 8:40 PM on December 4, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 8:40 PM on December 4, 2015 [3 favorites]
The editorial reads like a one way high school debate item. The second to last paragraph: it would require Americans who own those kinds of weapons to give them up for the good of their fellow citizens; that is going to immediately polarize the F out of the whole topic.
posted by buzzman at 8:43 PM on December 4, 2015
posted by buzzman at 8:43 PM on December 4, 2015
Are they trying to be more like the Union Leader, they've been doing front page editorials for decades?
posted by Confess, Fletch at 8:43 PM on December 4, 2015
posted by Confess, Fletch at 8:43 PM on December 4, 2015
This is the strongest action the paper could take over an issue they (and everyone else should) care about. NY times went nuclear.
posted by sety at 8:44 PM on December 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by sety at 8:44 PM on December 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
buzzman: "that is going to immediately polarize the F out of the whole topic."
It's not polarized already?
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 8:47 PM on December 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's not polarized already?
posted by Conrad Cornelius o'Donald o'Dell at 8:47 PM on December 4, 2015 [1 favorite]
Leave the topic of "how do we prevent shootings" to another thread entirely, the Onion, America's Finest (Satire) News source, has eminently managed to put up this week's version of their far-too-often-repeated article titled "
‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens".
The Onion intentionally keeps the same article, only changing the relevant numbers every time this happens which is far too often.
posted by fragmede at 8:47 PM on December 4, 2015 [2 favorites]
‘No Way To Prevent This,’ Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens".
The Onion intentionally keeps the same article, only changing the relevant numbers every time this happens which is far too often.
posted by fragmede at 8:47 PM on December 4, 2015 [2 favorites]
The Onion intentionally keeps the same article, only changing the relevant numbers every time this happens which is far too often.
Keep scrolling when you hit the little onion at the end of the article...
posted by MikeKD at 8:56 PM on December 4, 2015
Keep scrolling when you hit the little onion at the end of the article...
posted by MikeKD at 8:56 PM on December 4, 2015
Does that "retained" at the end look to anyone else like an edit for "regained"? (Particularly alongside "at long last"?)
posted by aesop at 9:01 PM on December 4, 2015
posted by aesop at 9:01 PM on December 4, 2015
I concur with Miko. Though not a Dailey newspaper, the collection of editorials from Harpers weekly are of interest concerning events of the time. For example: "The Whigs did not dare to adopt a strong slavery policy, and were equally destroyed. Mere daring is cheap. The important point is not to dare to do, but to dare to do right.
This country is now undergoing one of its severest trials in the effort to crush the individual conscience by party terrorism. But as we show elsewhere there are enough sagacious and influential members of the party to protest against so fatal a course, and to prevent the party of liberty from destroying by general consent the most sacred and essential rights of free citizens of a free nation."
-Harpers Weekly, May 30, 1868.
Different issues and format though the meaning of an editorials impact seems similar to the FFP link. Similar in as they seek to convey a community consensus mixed with common sense. Essentially taking a stand which can quickly turn to grand standing or worse. Then you have the topic of different paper(s)printing counter editorials. An interesting medium but without context to what is editorialized, it's just Opinion and fact moved to page one.
posted by clavdivs at 9:01 PM on December 4, 2015
This country is now undergoing one of its severest trials in the effort to crush the individual conscience by party terrorism. But as we show elsewhere there are enough sagacious and influential members of the party to protest against so fatal a course, and to prevent the party of liberty from destroying by general consent the most sacred and essential rights of free citizens of a free nation."
-Harpers Weekly, May 30, 1868.
Different issues and format though the meaning of an editorials impact seems similar to the FFP link. Similar in as they seek to convey a community consensus mixed with common sense. Essentially taking a stand which can quickly turn to grand standing or worse. Then you have the topic of different paper(s)printing counter editorials. An interesting medium but without context to what is editorialized, it's just Opinion and fact moved to page one.
posted by clavdivs at 9:01 PM on December 4, 2015
Does that "retained" at the end look to anyone else like an edit for "regained"?
Not to me. "Retained' makes more sense, suggesting that this is something that still exists - the proposition that we have lost any sense of decency being what is at issue. No, it was never lost, it has been retained. "At long last" refers to showing that the sense of decency continues to be an American characteristic, something we have not shown for a long time.
posted by Miko at 9:05 PM on December 4, 2015
Not to me. "Retained' makes more sense, suggesting that this is something that still exists - the proposition that we have lost any sense of decency being what is at issue. No, it was never lost, it has been retained. "At long last" refers to showing that the sense of decency continues to be an American characteristic, something we have not shown for a long time.
posted by Miko at 9:05 PM on December 4, 2015
I do not believe that the people that own AR-15s, etc; have any interest in a 'give up' of their rifles.
Rifles that have no real purpose but to fire lots of rounds; and don't qualify as 'art' except in a weird Giger-esue way; that is to say, there is no fine inlay, checkering, burled wood; or other indication of a craft on them except for lots of weird bolt ons and stuff. Yes, 90 rounds per minute is a brief, interesting, and visceral experience, but wtf. Zombies? Rabid deer? Space aliens?
The people that are into, very much into that type of rifle/weapon; are going to read a 'give up'; and have less of an interest in a table of compromise.
posted by buzzman at 9:06 PM on December 4, 2015
Rifles that have no real purpose but to fire lots of rounds; and don't qualify as 'art' except in a weird Giger-esue way; that is to say, there is no fine inlay, checkering, burled wood; or other indication of a craft on them except for lots of weird bolt ons and stuff. Yes, 90 rounds per minute is a brief, interesting, and visceral experience, but wtf. Zombies? Rabid deer? Space aliens?
The people that are into, very much into that type of rifle/weapon; are going to read a 'give up'; and have less of an interest in a table of compromise.
posted by buzzman at 9:06 PM on December 4, 2015
point taken.
but....
insane people, will by nature, ignore any law and do as they please and if they are motivated...will get whatever weapons they desire (pipe bombs , IED, etc) to do the purpose they are intent. Laws inacted by Norway did not prevent 90 children from dying at the hands of a madman.
...in other words, laws cannot prevent outlaws from doing what they want to do. By definition.
posted by shockingbluamp at 9:06 PM on December 4, 2015
but....
insane people, will by nature, ignore any law and do as they please and if they are motivated...will get whatever weapons they desire (pipe bombs , IED, etc) to do the purpose they are intent. Laws inacted by Norway did not prevent 90 children from dying at the hands of a madman.
...in other words, laws cannot prevent outlaws from doing what they want to do. By definition.
posted by shockingbluamp at 9:06 PM on December 4, 2015
This is good but not as big a deal as it would have been, say, before the New York Times fostered the Iraq War.
I'm glad for this but people remember. This is the post-Iraq War Times–though almost 13 years later not post-The Iraq War–and my feeling is the NYT still walks on bombshells.
posted by Mike Mongo at 9:07 PM on December 4, 2015
I'm glad for this but people remember. This is the post-Iraq War Times–though almost 13 years later not post-The Iraq War–and my feeling is the NYT still walks on bombshells.
posted by Mike Mongo at 9:07 PM on December 4, 2015
......in other words, laws cannot prevent outlaws from doing what they want to do. By definition.
...and helmets can't prevent all workplace or traffic injuries. Yet still, we wear them, and to varying degrees mandate that they are worn.
posted by flippant at 9:07 PM on December 4, 2015
...and helmets can't prevent all workplace or traffic injuries. Yet still, we wear them, and to varying degrees mandate that they are worn.
posted by flippant at 9:07 PM on December 4, 2015
« Older MT-40 Riddim | Macs and Cheeses of the Internet Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 8:34 PM on December 4, 2015