• by Erik Sass , Staff Writer @eriksass1, March 15, 2016

James Bennet is leaving his position as editor-in-chief of The Atlantic to return to The New York Times as editor of its editorial page, the publisher announced yesterday, replacing Andrew Rosenthal, who is stepping down after eight years in the top spot.

It remains to be seen whether Bennett can breath new life into this stagnant institution.

Indeed Bennet, who previously served as the NYT’s Jerusalem bureau chief and a White House correspondent, among other roles, faces an interesting and unusual challenge. The NYT is one of the best-known newspapers in the world and is considered the  “paper of record” in the U.S. But in recent years, its editorial page has been perceived as punching below its weight in terms of influence and insight.

It will come as no surprise that the NYT editorial page reliably presents the views of the bicoastal liberal establishment. However, within this fairly well-defined ideological target area, there are still a range of opinions, of varying sophistication, that a well-composed editorial page could compare and contrast.

Still, the NYT’s editorial page has tended to hew to “conventional wisdom,” presenting simple solutions to complex problems and failing to marshal sufficient arguments in their support.

The NYT’s recent take on gun control, published on the front page of the newspaper following the San Bernardino terrorist attack, was a good example. The editorial essentially called for new limits on assault weapons, deeming them “weapons of war” inappropriate for civilian ownership, and lashed out at politicians (both Republicans and Democrats) who refuse to take action on this issue.

But the editorial gave scant attention to the one insuperable fact standing in the way of gun control: the Second Amendment, the revision of which would require a new constitutional amendment, in turn, requiring ratification by three-quarters of the states.

In short, effective gun control remains politically impossible, as the meaningless executive measures ordered shortly afterwards by President Obama tacitly acknowledged. The NYT glossed over this entire issue – the logical heart of the matter – with one remark: “It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.”

The NYT’s basic stance on gun control didn’t come as a surprise – what was surprising and disappointing, especially considering the prominent placement accorded to the piece, was the lack of useful suggestions and pragmatic political perspectives. All were bypassed in favor of well-rehearsed moral indignation and rote condemnation.

The newspaper of record should be able to offer something more substantive – or remain silent.

It’s not just a lack of substance in the NYT’s unsigned editorials. Oftentimes, the NYT’s regular columnists, supposedly appointed for their unique insights, are clearly phoning it in or (even worse) seemingly unaware that they are trapped in a classic ivory tower.

Examples abound. Earlier this month, Nicholas Kristof wrote a piece, “After Super Tuesday, Bracing for President Trump,” in which he posed questions (and provided answers) to an imaginary Trump supporter – apparently because he couldn’t find any real ones to talk to.

Contrast that with The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank, who at least went to an actual Trump rally and listened to real people talking.