In light of Bret Stephen’s truly atrocious column, I thought I’d do a quick thread explaining one of the prime reasons why the NYTimes opinion section sucks as badly as it does

One of the primary reasons is that the Times’s own conception of the opinion section, as well as its roster, changed considerably in the 1970s and 80s, largely as a result of concerted efforts from a series of right-wing and libertarian think tanks

The decades before that were the height of the so-called liberal consensus: a range of institutions, including the NYTimes and think tanks like the Brookings Institute saw themselves as nonpartisan, although they would often propose vaguely liberal approaches to policy problems.

The same decades saw a growing number of right-wing and libertarian think tanks, for whom the liberal consensus was not nearly friendly enough to big business. They were led by the American Enterprise Institute, and later by the Heritage foundation.

(These think tanks were often funded by a series of ultra-rich businessmen who were vehemently anti-communist and who were often crucial members of fringe groups like the John Birch Society. But I digress.)

In the 70s and 80s, these think tanks began pushing the idea that there was a need for “balance” in mainstream institutions. While the institutions saw themselves as largely nonpolitical, think tanks like AEI branded them as liberal or left-leaning.

Caught off-guard, institutions like the NYTimes and the Brookings Institute rushed to prove they were not partisan by….hiring a bunch of right-wing thinkers and commentators in senior positions (in the case of the NYTimes, starting in 1973 with the hiring of Bill Safire).

The push for “balance” has been a crucial right-wing strategy since then. Think of Fox News’s mantra “fair and balanced,” which is laughable for its inaccuracy, but which is actually also an effective strategy.

They argue they provide “balance” to the “liberal media,” spend a lot of time attacking that media, and then the mainstream shifts to the right in their coverage in order to prove they’re not biased. It’s brilliant.

(Another quick digression: groups on the right are currently using this exact same strategy against tech platforms, who are wholly unequipped to deal with it. History repeats itself.)

(Ok one last digression I promise: the same think tanks in the 70s and 80s were largely responsible for reviving the popularity of the "marketplace of ideas" mythology. So that's a right-wing strategy too.)

Anyway, in the case of the NY times, they are still dominantly guided by the ideal of “balance,” a concept which seems apolitical but is actually a direct response to concerted right-wing pressure. And you get columnists like Stephens.

If you want to learn more about the truly baffling level of influence RW think tanks and billionaires have had on our political discourse, you should read "Invisible Hands" by Kim Phillips Fein or "Right Moves" by Jason Stahl. Jane Mayer's book on the Koch bros is also great./end