Russian President Vladimir Putin stunned political observers in the United States Wednesday night with the newsletter of an op-ed piece in The New York Occasions that, among different issues, promoted his own diplomatic option to the trouble in Syria, argued in opposition to any attainable U.S. defense force involvement, and blamed anti-Assad forces for the August 21 gasoline assault on the Damascus suburbs. In response to heavy criticism for publishing the piece, on the anniversary of Sep 11, no less, Instances public editor Margaret Sullivan took readers thru the editorial course of.

A Instances reader wondered, like many of us, how a piece like Putin’s, rife with contradictory, self-serving and unsupported statements, gets published via The New York Occasions. Reader Lawrence DeVine asked “Did he name up the editorial web page editor and say, hey, how would you like 800 words on you, us and Syria, I’ll have it in through Wednesday evening closing date, no sweat, I’ll take your overall freelance rates?”

Sullivan spoke with editorial web page editor Andrew Rosenthal, and explains:

The Instances editorial department was approached Wednesday with the aid of an American public members of the family firm that represents Mr. Putin, providing the piece. At the comparable time, Mr. Rosenthal stated, Mr. Putin’s spokesman had called The Times’s Moscow bureau with the same goal in thoughts.

Mr. Rosenthal agreed to check the article and speedy determined to post it. It used to be posted on the Instances Web Site by Wednesday night.

“I thought it was once smartly-written, well-argued,” he said. “I don’t believe a number of the points in it, however that’s inappropriate.”

“Syria is a huge story and Putin is a crucial determine in it,” giving the piece nice news worth, he said.

Among the many more forceful criticisms of the piece is the Times’ choice to post Putin’s unsupported declare that “Nobody doubts that poison gas used to be used in Syria. But there may be each purpose to consider it used to be used now not with the aid of the Syrian Military, however by using opposition forces, to provoke intervention by means of their highly effective foreign customers, who can be siding with the fundamentalists.”

Sullivan asked Rosenthal about that decision:

I requested him about Mr. Putin’s remark that there’s “each cause to imagine” that the poison gas has been used by opposition forces, now not the Syrian government – which many now do not consider to be authentic. Mr. Rosenthal said that “falls into the category of opinion.”

That point is debatable, due to the fact that Putin didn’t simply state his own perception, but offered the existence of tips in enhance of that belief, without providing any. Opinion or no longer, though, it’s doubtful that the Times would print an op-ed that mentioned one thing like “There is every purpose to consider that iPhones cause blindness.”

Sullivan concludes by approving of the choice:

From my standpoint, The Times’s publishing the Putin Op-Ed was utterly authentic. Whether or not you consider it or no longer, whether you approve of Mr. Putin or now not, it might probably rarely be more newsworthy or attention-grabbing. Simply as with every Op-Ed piece, The Times’s e-newsletter of this one just isn’t an endorsement of him or his concepts.

As for whether “the same old freelance rates” follow right here, the reply is unsurprising. Mr. Putin won’t be paid.