The "Room For Debate" online opinion section of the New York Times offers an example of the way the Times offers the appearance of a debate or a diversity of opinion rather than an actual debate. First, the Times frames the question: "Should regulators and lawmakers in the United States" place caps on bankers' bonuses similar to those in force in the European Union? The Times publishes responses from five sources. Two are professors at European universities. That doesn't take anything away from their arguments, but why should an American newspaper give foreigners 40 percent of the say over a question of American law?
None of the five respondents is a banker whose bonus would be subject to the cap. You'd think their opinions might be relevant, no?
Four of the five respondents seem, in one way or another, to favor caps or some other crackdown on banker bonuses. If the editors wanted a real debate, they'd get roughly equal numbers in favor and against.
The Times biography of one of the debate participants reports that "he is on Tweeter." The hyperlink is to Twitter, which the Times opinion editors apparently can't even spell correctly.
 "He is on Tweeter." |
What a sorry showing.
It's the illusion of a debate, not a real debate. It suggests that in fact, there is not room for debate, at least at the Times.