Quote

We're trying to publicize this one and make people realize that the gun industry can clean up its act and can operate in a way that can reduce the likelihood of guns killing police officers and other innocent people.

I believe our editorial decisions reflected our constant desire to make sure that we fully cover and analyze any issue and give our viewers all the information they need.

We're journalists, so our default position is we're not writing editorial. We're trying to bring information to readers, viewers, so that they can make up their own conclusions.

The New York Times editorial page is like a Ouija board that has only three answers, no matter what the question. The answers are: higher taxes, more restrictions on political speech and stricter gun control.

The publisher has told - you know, if these editors, Andres Martinez and Nick Goldberg, were the least bit honest about this, they would tell you the publisher has told them he wants the editorial page to be conservative.

Guns are part of the Constitution, and no one is willing to have that tough conversation with Congress and the Senate and the president to say maybe that's got to change. People talk about it - but I mean actual change.

I think when you're knee-deep in coming up with editorial plans, the desire to sit down and pencil something is pretty strong.

There is considerable merit to the notion of treating gun violence as a public health matter.

We need sensible gun safety measures. The federal government could do something about this; they could show up.

Editorials are, obviously, pieces of opinion journalism. They are not intended to be dispassionate, balanced accountings of a news situation or issue. They present a strong and strongly argued position and do not necessarily present or even take into account the opposing position.