On the other, this is a way bigger problem than any one editor, and this smacks of the Times' usual "solution" of attacking a symptom while failing to recognize the disease. Their reaction to the "Trump urges unity vs. racism" debacle last year was basically, "Okay, so that was a really bad headline, but aren't people overreacting to one bad headline?" They really don't seem to understand the extent of the problem they have. It's bigger than any one story or any one editor.
People aren't just mad about a single editorial taken in isolation -- even though yes, it was a particularly fucking egregious editorial. They're not mad because this editorial was so far outside the norm for the Times -- they're mad because it really wasn't that far outside the norm for the Times.
This problem didn't begin with James Bennet, and it won't end with him. Getting rid of Bennet is a good first step, but I don't think it's clear that management realizes it's not the last step.
The interviewer asks some good, pointed questions, and some bad ones. The good ones are interesting because I tend to agree with them that Stewart seems to still believe a little too much in the notion that we can find some common ground with Trump supporters. The bad ones are interesting because Stewart points out that they're bad and concisely explains why they're bad.
I've got several optimist friends, after hours of discussions they always eventually admit they don't want to agree with my darker positions about human nature because it would be sad. And I'm not talking about how I felt in my Edgelord 20s when I thought everyone was horrible, which is equally wrong.