Better Service

Responding to the overwhelmingly negative reaction to Edward Luttwak's recycling of Daniel Pipes' garbage earlier this month, New York Times public editor Clark Hoyt concludes:

With a subject this charged, readers would have been far better served with more than a single, extreme point of view. When writers purport to educate readers about complex matters, and they are arguably wrong, I think The Times cannot label it opinion and let it go at that.

The Times' readers would have also been far better served by simply not allowing a conservative military historian with no apparent training in Islamic jurisprudence to hold forth on the finer points of sharia law on the Times' esteemed op-ed page in the first place. But it's good that there now seems to be some consensus about what unscholarly trash Luttwak's piece was.

Comments

[gclub]

Great post! It saws strong argument to refer to the open innovation movement in government. This explanation would require far fewer friends outside this arena and is generally well accepted