Good morning. 💼 The May jobs report hits at 8:30 a.m. ET. Economists expect roughly 8.3 million jobs were lost, which would bring the country's unemployment rate to nearly 20 percent.

🔥 Last night: Protests continued in cities across the country. Meanwhile, in Washington, the White House was effectively turned into a fortress.

Join the Market: 🗞️ Newsletter | 🎙️ Podcast

Robert Alexander/Getty

Future of speech

James Bennet blows it

Moving the Market: The heated debate over The New York Times' decision to publish a controversial op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., took an unexpected turn on Thursday when the paper announced that the essay didn't meet its standards and James Bennet, the editorial page editor, disclosed that he hadn't read it prior to publication.

• The big picture: The Times' publication of Cotton's op-ed, and the ensuing protest from staff, set off an important debate about how the nation's paper of record weighs its commitment to publishing a broad array of voices against its commitment to causes like racial justice.

• That was squandered by Bennet's handling of the whole affair. The Times, meanwhile, has not disclosed what standards Cotton's op-ed failed to meet, nor has it provided transparency into what it describes as "a rushed editorial process."

• Meanwhile, Bennet's claim that he did not read the essay prior to publication strains credulity. While he cannot be expected to read every piece the Opinion section publishes, it is hard to accept that he would have approved such a controversial column without reading it.

The backstory: The Times' mea culpa came hours after both Bennet and A.G. Sulzberger, the Times' publisher, defended the publication of Cotton's op-ed, which called for President Donald Trump to use the military to subdue "rioters" in the protests against police violence.

• Bennet wrote a thoughtful op-ed in which he argued that "it would undermine the integrity and independence of The New York Times if we only published views that editors like me agreed with."

• Sulzberger told staff he believed in "the principle of openness to a range of opinions," and said the paper only published arguments that were "accurate, good faith explorations of the issues of the day."

• Meanwhile, as the Times reports, more than 800 staff members had signed a letter protesting the op-ed's publication. They also noted areas where Cotton's op-ed contained misinformation.

Hours later, the Times issued a statement: "A rushed editorial process" had "led to the publication of an Op-Ed that did not meet our standards." In response, the paper pledged to expand its fact-checking operation and reduce the number of op-eds it publishes.

• The Times then reported that Bennet had said in a meeting with staff that he had not read the essay before it was published.

• In a statement, Cotton's office said it had not been contacted by the Times and cast doubt on the paper's decision. "We’re curious to know what part of that process and this piece didn’t meet their standards," a spokesperson for the Senator said.

What's next: We are also curious to know what standards Cotton's op-ed did not meet, but we haven't heard back. Meanwhile, the Times reports that the essay and its publication are under review.

Market Links

• Mark Zuckerberg will start to label state-run media (NBC)

• Sundar Pichai announces major executive shakeup (Information)

• Claudia Eller takes leave at Variety after outburst (Deadline)

• Adam Silver gets greenlight for NBA restart (ESPN)

• LeBron James calls out Laura Ingraham (Twitter)

🌞 What's next: The weekend.

See you Monday.