ALPB Forum Online

ALPB => Your Turn => Topic started by: Mark Brown on June 07, 2020, 08:04:58 PM

Title: The End of the NYT
Post by: Mark Brown on June 07, 2020, 08:04:58 PM
I'd love to know the answers to a few questions by our resident journalist.

Charles,
1) What do you think of the forced resignation of the NYT editorial page editor over an Op-Ed by a Sitting US Senator sought after by the NYT expressing an opinion that 65% of the American public agreed with? (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/business/media/james-bennet-resigns-nytimes-op-ed.htm (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/07/business/media/james-bennet-resigns-nytimes-op-ed.htm)l) Is this the action of a real newspaper?

2) What do you think of the tactics of the "editorial page staff" to demand his firing and essentially the end of his career over this?  Is making people unemployable acceptable?

3) Why should anyone to the right of Mao bother to talk with or read the NYT in the future?
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: peter_speckhard on June 07, 2020, 08:14:51 PM
I don’t think this ended anyone’s career. It ended his tenure at the NYT. But it looks increasingly like that will prove a feather in his cap within a few years, as the NYT becomes a caricature of itself and real journalism goes elsewhere.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Mark Brown on June 07, 2020, 08:24:59 PM
I don’t think this ended anyone’s career. It ended his tenure at the NYT. But it looks increasingly like that will prove a feather in his cap within a few years, as the NYT becomes a caricature of itself and real journalism goes elsewhere.

In a fair world, when the current fever on the left breaks, I might agree with you.  But it is the youngsters that are the Robespierres.  And if the NYT can't hire you because you have become a political pariah, and the right leaning press has no great impetus to hire a former NYT's editor, who exactly is going to hire him?

This is the most evil part about these Jacobins that the useful idiots are handing these institutions over to.  So many of them are trustfund-istas, and they think nothing of removing a man's livelihood. Hell, they do it to nobodies.  Remember the ur-case of that poor woman who made a joke, got on a plane and when she got off found out she'd been fired over twitter?
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Charles Austin on June 07, 2020, 10:12:45 PM
From what I read of the situation, it appears that the piece appeared without proper editorial review. That might well have led to the resignation of the op Ed page editor, who may have been remiss in his duties.
Apart from that, a newspaper, like any other large business, is a community. The community has its ways of doing things, and ways of responding to particular situations. If leaders do things which anger or irritate or Perhaps endanger the community as a whole or major segments of it, there may be a price to pay.
A final comment, maybe just a personal one. Newspapers are not obligated to print every idea, or treat every idea as either worth printing or equal to every other idea.
That’s not censorship, that Is freedom of the press and business.
Personally, I thought the Cotton article stupid and not the kind of ideas that should be spread around In any publication that I had anything to do with. I have no doubt he would find somebody willing to print it.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Charles Austin on June 07, 2020, 10:36:17 PM
From the paper itself (my emphasis added):
 James Bennet resigned on Sunday from his job as the editorial page editor of The New York Times, days after the newspaper’s opinion section, which he oversaw, published a much-criticized Op-Ed by a United States senator calling for a military response to civic unrest in American cities.
“Last week we saw a significant breakdown in our editing processes, not the first we’ve experienced in recent years,” said A. G. Sulzberger, the publisher, in a note to the staff on Sunday announcing Mr. Bennet’s departure.
In a brief interview, Mr. Sulzberger added: “Both of us concluded that James would not be able to lead the team through the next leg of change that is required.”
At an all-staff virtual meeting on Friday, Mr. Bennet, 54, apologized for the Op-Ed, saying that it should not have been published and that it had not been edited carefully enough. An editors’ note posted late Friday noted factual inaccuracies and a “needlessly harsh” tone. “The essay fell short of our standards and should not have been published,” the note said.

I comment:
The article goes on to note several other relatively recent Problems with the op-Ed page under the leadership of this editor.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: peter_speckhard on June 07, 2020, 10:45:10 PM
There is no official party line you’re not credulous to swallow, is there. Read Sulzberger’s series of statements. Read any documented sequence of events. The crap you’re posting here, Charles, is pure Central Committee cya nonsense. You simply refuse to familiarize yourself with contrary views with far better documentation.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Charles Austin on June 07, 2020, 11:07:13 PM
Tell me what those countrary views are, Peter. Tell me with who in The New York Times community thinks it was a bad idea. A leader losers the support of his staff and his bosses, what should happen?
And what far better documentation do you have in the situation? I’d like to see it.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on June 08, 2020, 12:30:40 AM
Apart from that, a newspaper, like any other large business, is a community.


Well, no, a business enterprise is not a community.  But this attitude may help explain the disconnect between those "in" and all those deplorables who are "out."

Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Charles Austin on June 08, 2020, 12:54:54 AM
I worked for three newspapers, Steven. They are communities of people engaged in a single effort. In many ways they care about each other and feel that they are bonded together by their “mission.“
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: James J Eivan on June 08, 2020, 01:20:53 AM
I worked for three newspapers, Steven. They are communities of people engaged in a single effort. In many ways they care about each other and feel that they are bonded together by their “mission.“
Tragically the ‘mission’ often does not include the truth ... as has often been pointed out on various forum threads.😖
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Mark Brown on June 08, 2020, 01:43:28 AM
There is no official party line you’re not credulous to swallow, is there. Read Sulzberger’s series of statements. Read any documented sequence of events. The crap you’re posting here, Charles, is pure Central Committee cya nonsense. You simply refuse to familiarize yourself with contrary views with far better documentation.

This, so much this.  It staggers the mind the depths of hackery.

Anybody that is not on the payroll at this point should mark it well.  You have a choice and you know.  You can't claim ignorance anymore.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Charles Austin on June 08, 2020, 05:02:49 AM
Maybe, Mark Brown, you have evidence of the newspaper’s alleged atrocities in this case. I would like to see it.
But it’s a “nice” distraction cooked up here. Never mind whether any of the worries about the Cotton rant are true; just focus on the fact that they were made at all.
Let’s say an LCMS Vice President  wrote an article in Lutheran Witness Reporter saying it’s time to force every district to discuss the ordination of women and if a district refused to do it, he would send in people from St.Louis to have the discussion any way. What do you think would happen to the editor?
But we are already sticking our twitchy noses and long ears into the rabbit hole. If that newspaper published one article a week like the one in question, people here would still hate it and heap scorn on anyone who defends it.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Voelker on June 08, 2020, 09:07:32 AM
The trust-fund Maoists behind these shenanigans have no idea what's going to happen to them if the side they've chosen wins. Reaping the whirlwind, and all that.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: peter_speckhard on June 08, 2020, 09:24:50 AM
Maybe, Mark Brown, you have evidence of the newspaper’s alleged atrocities in this case. I would like to see it.
But it’s a “nice” distraction cooked up here. Never mind whether any of the worries about the Cotton rant are true; just focus on the fact that they were made at all.
Let’s say an LCMS Vice President  wrote an article in Lutheran Witness Reporter saying it’s time to force every district to discuss the ordination of women and if a district refused to do it, he would send in people from St.Louis to have the discussion any way. What do you think would happen to the editor?
But we are already sticking our twitchy noses and long ears into the rabbit hole. If that newspaper published one article a week like the one in question, people here would still hate it and heap scorn on anyone who defends it.
You are describing the NYT, not us. Don’t focus on what Cotton said, focus on the fact that he was allowed to say it. That’s what made heads roll at NTY and eyes roll everywhere else.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Charles Austin on June 08, 2020, 09:26:23 AM
“Trust fund Maoists” !
Now, WJV, what do you think people would say if I were to refer to Trump supporters as “trailer park rednecks”?
Well, Don’t worry. You will get away with your words.
Good grief!
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Charles Austin on June 08, 2020, 09:37:33 AM
Peter, you still don’t get it. The article reached publication and was immediately found to have been published Without proper editorial scrutiny and because it was determined that it did not meet the newspaper’s standards, and because more than 1000 people at the newspaper thought a mistake had been made that might even endanger their colleagues in the field.
The editor Who should’ve been involved had previous incidents and errors of judgment that were dark marks on his record.
Is it your intention the newspapers should not have total control over what they print?
I said upstream that I thought the article was stupid and dangerous. But I also know that Cotton would have no trouble at all finding a place to get it published.
I don’t see the big deal because one newspaper, which nobody here likes anyway, said they should not have published it.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Voelker on June 08, 2020, 09:57:28 AM
“Trust fund Maoists” !
Now, WJV, what do you think people would say if I were to refer to Trump supporters as “trailer park rednecks”?
Well, Don’t worry. You will get away with your words.
Good grief!
There's a difference between a fair description and an intended insult. The privileged children who threw this tantrum, and were rewarded for it, are pushing for the destruction/canceling/silencing of anyone who doesn't conform to the opinion du jour. They clearly have no understanding of the traditional reward for useful idiots.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Charles Austin on June 08, 2020, 10:13:52 AM
So it is “privileged children” Who work for the New York Times? That’s your deep understanding applying to more than 1000 people?
What foolishness!
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: peter_speckhard on June 08, 2020, 10:21:34 AM
Peter, you still don’t get it. The article reached publication and was immediately found to have been published Without proper editorial scrutiny and because it was determined that it did not meet the newspaper’s standards, and because more than 1000 people at the newspaper thought a mistake had been made that might even endanger their colleagues in the field.
The editor Who should’ve been involved had previous incidents and errors of judgment that were dark marks on his record.
Is it your intention the newspapers should not have total control over what they print?
I said upstream that I thought the article was stupid and dangerous. But I also know that Cotton would have no trouble at all finding a place to get it published.
I don’t see the big deal because one newspaper, which nobody here likes anyway, said they should not have published it.
You don't get it. What you just said is a lie invented after the fact. Cotton has detailed the editorial process he went through, documenting that it was the same as always, and very persnickety in terms of fact-checking and getting all the right layers of approval. Then when he faced rebellion in his own ranks he had to think of a face-saving reason to cave, so he said the editorial process had not been followed, and that, not the decision to print the article with non-progressive content, is why he had to let the editor go. And you naively believe it because you refuse to believe that the NYT is full of such blindered gourp-think that even an op-ed piece from a perfectly mainstream, Harvard educated U.S. Senator is an outrage if it supports something Trump said.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Charles Austin on June 08, 2020, 10:36:23 AM
Peter, the article is an outrage because it vociferously advocates using U.S. active duty military troops against U.S. citizens.
You apparently naively believe, without question, Cotton's account of what happened.
I happen to believe the newspaper, which has nothing to gain by admitting a mistake.
NYT reporters, including those who are African-American, were particularly concerned because they are among those out there who would be facing the power of the U.S. military.
And I repeat what I said upstream, namely that if the Times would print an article like this every week, people here would still hate the paper and heap scorn on anyone who supports it.

Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Mark Brown on June 08, 2020, 10:43:49 AM
...
Let’s say an LCMS Vice President  wrote an article in Lutheran Witness Reporter...


I'm glad we have it on record now.  The NYT (once the national paper of record) is now equal to an in-house glossy.  We have your answer to my third question.  There is no reason for anyone right of Mao to pay attention to the NYTs anymore.  It is an in-house glossy.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Voelker on June 08, 2020, 10:47:47 AM
So it is “privileged children” Who work for the New York Times? That’s your deep understanding applying to more than 1000 people?
What foolishness!
Yes, exactly them. Mostly Ivy-League, world-experience-free younglings who regard disagreement with their clan as assault. They threw a fit and got their way on this — so what's next? A young, leftish journalist (Tim Pool), who is horrified by the direction taken by many in the media, has described them as (this is from memory) "activists who hollow out institutions and then wear them as a skinsuit." That's accurate, and something that we've already seen happen to numerous church bodies in the US, as is well-chronicled on this board. It's a march through the institutions, breaking and bending each one for political ends. The really scary part is that we're starting to run out of institutions.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Charles Austin on June 08, 2020, 11:20:47 AM
WJV:
Yes, exactly them. Mostly Ivy-League, world-experience-free younglings who regard disagreement with their clan as assault.

Me:
And just how do you know this? How do you know the education, the background, the experience of hundreds of New York Times reporters?
And The background of hundreds more who. signed on to the protest.
Sigh. And to think of the hours I spent in the secular world trying to convince people that those believed in religion are not all flatearthers, or 6-day creationists, snake handlers or followers of television evangelists.
Hope no tornadoes come near your trailer park.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: The Yak on June 08, 2020, 11:36:33 AM
I don’t think this ended anyone’s career. It ended his tenure at the NYT. But it looks increasingly like that will prove a feather in his cap within a few years, as the NYT becomes a caricature of itself and real journalism goes elsewhere.

I've been trying to cancel my subscription for a few days now.  It is remarkably difficult to do, but I just can't countenance paying a measly $6 / 4 weeks anymore.  There's no point.  I can get what folks at the NYTimes want to say from most any other legacy media outlet.  It is easy to find the propaganda; I don't see why I should pay for it (and I'm bummed that I pay by the year for WashPo -- just have to wait for that one to run out).

They used to be really good, but, alas, no more.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: James_Gale on June 08, 2020, 11:48:29 AM
I don’t think this ended anyone’s career. It ended his tenure at the NYT. But it looks increasingly like that will prove a feather in his cap within a few years, as the NYT becomes a caricature of itself and real journalism goes elsewhere.

I've been trying to cancel my subscription for a few days now.  It is remarkably difficult to do, but I just can't countenance paying a measly $6 / 4 weeks anymore.  There's no point.  I can get what folks at the NYTimes want to say from most any other legacy media outlet.  It is easy to find the propaganda; I don't see why I should pay for it (and I'm bummed that I pay by the year for WashPo -- just have to wait for that one to run out).

They used to be really good, but, alas, no more.


I canceled my Washington Post subscription recently.  The Post refunded the unused portion of the subscription for which I'd prepaid.  If you don't want to wait for the year to run out, you likely don't have to.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Mark Brown on June 08, 2020, 11:50:06 AM
I don’t think this ended anyone’s career. It ended his tenure at the NYT. But it looks increasingly like that will prove a feather in his cap within a few years, as the NYT becomes a caricature of itself and real journalism goes elsewhere.

I've been trying to cancel my subscription for a few days now.  It is remarkably difficult to do, but I just can't countenance paying a measly $6 / 4 weeks anymore.  There's no point.  I can get what folks at the NYTimes want to say from most any other legacy media outlet.  It is easy to find the propaganda; I don't see why I should pay for it (and I'm bummed that I pay by the year for WashPo -- just have to wait for that one to run out).

They used to be really good, but, alas, no more.

Was glad the WaPo sub was through Amazon.  I killed that a while ago.  The only one I find worth it is the WSJ.  They still seem to play it straight or try too.  I'm assuming that is because their primary lens is business.  So the stories they pick and how they tell them are not all national politics.  Politics might enter, but almost always as a complicating factor in the life of the business.  Even their foreign policy coverage is more about multi-national business impact than anything else.  If they have a forced narative it is a rather gentle one about the interesting ways people make a buck.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: James_Gale on June 08, 2020, 12:03:45 PM
WJV:
Yes, exactly them. Mostly Ivy-League, world-experience-free younglings who regard disagreement with their clan as assault.

Me:
And just how do you know this? How do you know the education, the background, the experience of hundreds of New York Times reporters?
And The background of hundreds more who. signed on to the protest.
Sigh. And to think of the hours I spent in the secular world trying to convince people that those believed in religion are not all flatearthers, or 6-day creationists, snake handlers or followers of television evangelists.
Hope no tornadoes come near your trailer park.


From NYT opinion-page editor Bari Weiss's Twitter feed:


"The civil war inside The New York Times between the (mostly young) wokes [and] the (mostly 40+) liberals is the same one raging inside other publications . . . .  The dynamic is always the same. . . .  The Old Guard lives by a set of principles that we can broadly call civil libertarianism.  They assumed they shared that worldview with the young people they hired who called themselves liberals and progressives.  But it was an incorrect assumption.  The New Guard has a different worldview, one articulated best by [Jonathan Haidt] and [Greg Lukianoff].  They call it 'safetyism,' in which the right of people to feel emotionally and psychologically safe trumps what were previously considered core liberal values, like free speech."


You are willfully blind if you don't see what's happening.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: James_Gale on June 08, 2020, 12:16:31 PM
Peter, the article is an outrage because it vociferously advocates using U.S. active duty military troops against U.S. citizens.
You apparently naively believe, without question, Cotton's account of what happened.
I happen to believe the newspaper, which has nothing to gain by admitting a mistake.
NYT reporters, including those who are African-American, were particularly concerned because they are among those out there who would be facing the power of the U.S. military.
And I repeat what I said upstream, namely that if the Times would print an article like this every week, people here would still hate the paper and heap scorn on anyone who supports it.


Even people inside the NYT admit that there has been a civil war there and that the civil liberties advocates have lost.  But, as you like to say, carry on.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Charles Austin on June 08, 2020, 12:17:35 PM
An article in Vox by Zach Beauchamp  finds flaws in the Weiss twittering. (My emphasis added)

"One narrative of these events, circulated most prominently by staff editor Bari Weiss in a Thursday tweet thread, cast the conflict in ideological terms: an internal war between free speech advocates and young social justice warriors. But Weiss’s characterization was widely rejected by her colleagues; several Times reporters I spoke to, all of whom asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation, cited professional concerns as the reason for the public disagreement. (Times representatives did not respond to my request for comment.)
   "They argued that elements of Bennet’s op-ed page — including Weiss, deputy editor James Dao (who oversaw the Cotton piece), and columnist Bret Stephens — have elevated trolling the Times’s liberal readership into a kind of raison d’être, one that has led to the publication of poor-quality material and damaged the ability of other staffers to do their jobs.
   "This internal staff conflict, insular as it may seem to outsiders, speaks to a fundamental question not only about the Times but all of mainstream journalism.
   "It’s not a debate about whether the Times should have conservative voices at all. The op-ed page employs Ross Douthat and David Brooks as staff columnists and regularly publishes outside contributions by Republicans and conservative thinkers, mostly without serious controversy.
   Rather, it’s a question of how journalists should think about their roles as guardians of mainstream discourse. Does every idea that’s popular in power, no matter how poorly considered, deserve some kind of respectful airing in mainstream publications? Or are there boundaries, both of quality of argument and moral decency, where editors need to draw the line — especially in the Trump era?"

There is more, and you can read it here:
https://www.vox.com/2020/6/5/21280425/new-york-times-tom-cotton-send-troops-staff-revolt
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: James_Gale on June 08, 2020, 12:38:27 PM
An article in Vox by Zach Beauchamp  finds flaws in the Weiss twittering. (My emphasis added)

"One narrative of these events, circulated most prominently by staff editor Bari Weiss in a Thursday tweet thread, cast the conflict in ideological terms: an internal war between free speech advocates and young social justice warriors. But Weiss’s characterization was widely rejected by her colleagues; several Times reporters I spoke to, all of whom asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation, cited professional concerns as the reason for the public disagreement. (Times representatives did not respond to my request for comment.)
   "They argued that elements of Bennet’s op-ed page — including Weiss, deputy editor James Dao (who oversaw the Cotton piece), and columnist Bret Stephens — have elevated trolling the Times’s liberal readership into a kind of raison d’être, one that has led to the publication of poor-quality material and damaged the ability of other staffers to do their jobs.
   "This internal staff conflict, insular as it may seem to outsiders, speaks to a fundamental question not only about the Times but all of mainstream journalism.
   "It’s not a debate about whether the Times should have conservative voices at all. The op-ed page employs Ross Douthat and David Brooks as staff columnists and regularly publishes outside contributions by Republicans and conservative thinkers, mostly without serious controversy.
   Rather, it’s a question of how journalists should think about their roles as guardians of mainstream discourse. Does every idea that’s popular in power, no matter how poorly considered, deserve some kind of respectful airing in mainstream publications? Or are there boundaries, both of quality of argument and moral decency, where editors need to draw the line — especially in the Trump era?"

There is more, and you can read it here:
https://www.vox.com/2020/6/5/21280425/new-york-times-tom-cotton-send-troops-staff-revolt (https://www.vox.com/2020/6/5/21280425/new-york-times-tom-cotton-send-troops-staff-revolt)


Wow.  Just wow.  First, the people described here as conservatives aren't conservative at all (except, in some important ways, Douthat).  The Times otherwise employed no conservative writers.  None. 


More importantly, the article is a full-on defense of the notion that journalists should be "guardians of mainstream discourse."  The notion that any powerful person or group might become the "guardian" responsible for excluding swaths of speech from mainstream discourse is terrifying.  It should scare the crap even out of you.  If it is legitimate for anyone to play that role, rest assured that you and those who think like you eventually will find themselves in the guardian's crosshairs.  This is a lesson that people like James Bennett and Andrew Sullivan are learning now.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Voelker on June 08, 2020, 01:24:25 PM
WJV:
Yes, exactly them. Mostly Ivy-League, world-experience-free younglings who regard disagreement with their clan as assault.

Me:
And just how do you know this? How do you know the education, the background, the experience of hundreds of New York Times reporters?
And The background of hundreds more who. signed on to the protest.
Sigh. And to think of the hours I spent in the secular world trying to convince people that those believed in religion are not all flatearthers, or 6-day creationists, snake handlers or followers of television evangelists.
Hope no tornadoes come near your trailer park.
While odds are good that the "people" you've tried to convince would recoil in horror at the thought that they would be thought to be so déclassé so as to be a possible target for your attempted insult, those of us who aren't hothouse flowers can only chuckle. The fact of the matter is this: the NYT, as with so many other media outlets, has been taken over by people who do not care about you, me, or anyone else; they care about their ideolog(y)(ies), particular ends being met, being thought of well by their peers, and their place in the future pecking order once the Right People are in charge. They're dangerous, anti-Liberty, anti-Life, anti-Civilization, and would consider you to be laughably reactionary. You've shown an inability to read what's right in front of your face, as Mr. Gale has demonstrated; I don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Charles Austin on June 08, 2020, 01:46:46 PM
I don’t know who you are, WJV, but it does seem to me that you live in a very fearful world. Or maybe you’re one of those people who thrives on being a victim or seeing “the enemy” everywhere.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Voelker on June 08, 2020, 01:55:12 PM
I don’t know who you are, WJV, but it does seem to me that you live in a very fearful world. Or maybe you’re one of those people who thrives on being a victim or seeing “the enemy” everywhere.
Long-distance psychologizing sure ain't your strong suit. This whole conversation brings to mind an old folk parable retold by Hunter S. Thompson (https://books.google.com/books?id=30BR-oskrasC&pg=PP13&lpg=PP13&dq=%22the+old+woman+and+the+snake%22+%22hunter+s+thompson%22&source=bl&ots=PzZ8V-NnfH&sig=ACfU3U3RTtYvM2Wmlw7_NagTc6vuT_kPDg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwis89qt5PLpAhVaa80KHS1oCC0Q6AEwAXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22the%20old%20woman%20and%20the%20snake%22%20%22hunter%20s%20thompson%22&f=false). Toodles.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Mark Brown on June 08, 2020, 02:41:00 PM
An article in Vox by Zach Beauchamp  finds flaws in the Weiss twittering. (My emphasis added)

OMG. Vox = Catechism class for slow progressives.  Zach Beauchamp = The Vox writer assigned everything regular Vox writers say "nah, I'll pass on that, even I have more self-respect that to write that." C'mon Charles, you'd be much better off just admitting "yeah, this is ugly" and taking the L.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: The Yak on June 08, 2020, 02:47:57 PM
I don’t think this ended anyone’s career. It ended his tenure at the NYT. But it looks increasingly like that will prove a feather in his cap within a few years, as the NYT becomes a caricature of itself and real journalism goes elsewhere.

I've been trying to cancel my subscription for a few days now.  It is remarkably difficult to do, but I just can't countenance paying a measly $6 / 4 weeks anymore.  There's no point.  I can get what folks at the NYTimes want to say from most any other legacy media outlet.  It is easy to find the propaganda; I don't see why I should pay for it (and I'm bummed that I pay by the year for WashPo -- just have to wait for that one to run out).

They used to be really good, but, alas, no more.

Woohoo!  Finally was able to cancel it.  They offered me a rate of $0.50 / week for 52 weeks, and I said that I don't like overpaying.  So now, finally, it is cancelled.  Shew.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: peter_speckhard on June 08, 2020, 02:49:55 PM
An article in Vox by Zach Beauchamp  finds flaws in the Weiss twittering. (My emphasis added)

"One narrative of these events, circulated most prominently by staff editor Bari Weiss in a Thursday tweet thread, cast the conflict in ideological terms: an internal war between free speech advocates and young social justice warriors. But Weiss’s characterization was widely rejected by her colleagues; several Times reporters I spoke to, all of whom asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation,
Nothing debunks the narrative of an internal civil war like a rebuttal delivered anonymously for fear of retaliation.

But the real issue is that Tom Cotton is perfectly mainstream, as was the position he outlined. He wins statewide elections and has a national following . He is way, way, way, more mainstream than many of the progressives who voice their opinions in the NYT. This is perfectly obvious to everyone. The issue is not what is mainstream, but what the NYT times employees wish were mainstream coupled with the smug elitism by which they think their calling is to shape rather than reflect what mainstream means.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: peter_speckhard on June 08, 2020, 03:00:25 PM
http://www.judithmiller.com/24236/new-york-times-cotton-oped?fbclid=IwAR1TfKHriXDMSfZQgvSE1Hq7EpadWYcEhAE3fYc0Q-qHGaPduyR0rUGTlEA
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Charles Austin on June 08, 2020, 03:41:23 PM
How about this, Peter? I am 75% - maybe 90 % - inclined to be convinced by and agree with what Judith Miller wrote, although one might conclude that she has some axes to grind, Or could be seeking revenge for what happened to her.
But what she writes is credible, she has nothing really to gain by lying about it.  I could believe it. I can and probably will  conclude that in this matter and perhaps in some others the  New York Times, not the whole newspaper, not the entire staff, but key leaders right up to the publisher, made a monumental f***-up, I could agree with everyone who says that what happened is reprehensible, And I hope that as the paper takes a close look at itself, the Times might find many things that may need repair. I am really leaning that way.
But I will still read it every day and consider it a credible, accurate, useful approach and interpretation of what’s going on in the world. It may be better at doing that On the national and international level than almost any other newspaper.
But like every other human institution, Including the church, it isn’t perfect and on a certain matter here, it screwed up.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: jebutler on June 08, 2020, 04:04:09 PM
An article in Vox by Zach Beauchamp  finds flaws in the Weiss twittering. (My emphasis added)

"One narrative of these events, circulated most prominently by staff editor Bari Weiss in a Thursday tweet thread, cast the conflict in ideological terms: an internal war between free speech advocates and young social justice warriors. But Weiss’s characterization was widely rejected by her colleagues; several Times reporters I spoke to, all of whom asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation, cited professional concerns as the reason for the public disagreement.

Bari Weiss makes the accusation of a "conflict in ideological terms: an internal war between free speech advocates and young social justice warriors." But this is "widely rejected" by "several Times reporters" "all of whom asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation."

Doesn't that kind of prove her point?
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: James J Eivan on June 08, 2020, 04:13:08 PM
An article in Vox by Zach Beauchamp  finds flaws in the Weiss twittering. (My emphasis added)

"One narrative of these events, circulated most prominently by staff editor Bari Weiss in a Thursday tweet thread, cast the conflict in ideological terms: an internal war between free speech advocates and young social justice warriors. But Weiss’s characterization was widely rejected by her colleagues; several Times reporters I spoke to, all of whom asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation, cited professional concerns as the reason for the public disagreement.

Bari Weiss makes the accusation of a "conflict in ideological terms: an internal war between free speech advocates and young social justice warriors." But this is "widely rejected" by "several Times reporters" "all of whom asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation."

Doesn't that kind of prove her point?
Apparently it is news when ‘republicans’ disagree with the president and they are celebrated for such action .... but apparently not walking lockstep with NY Times management is discouraged and job termination as retribution for such action is acceptable and encouraged.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Eileen Smith on June 08, 2020, 04:31:45 PM
I'll admit that I'm willing to pay if only for David Brooks.  I always look forward to his columns.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: peter_speckhard on June 08, 2020, 04:42:26 PM
How about this, Peter? I am 75% - maybe 90 % - inclined to be convinced by and agree with what Judith Miller wrote, although one might conclude that she has some axes to grind, Or could be seeking revenge for what happened to her.
But what she writes is credible, she has nothing really to gain by lying about it.  I could believe it. I can and probably will  conclude that in this matter and perhaps in some others the  New York Times, not the whole newspaper, not the entire staff, but key leaders right up to the publisher, made a monumental f***-up, I could agree with everyone who says that what happened is reprehensible, And I hope that as the paper takes a close look at itself, the Times might find many things that may need repair. I am really leaning that way.
But I will still read it every day and consider it a credible, accurate, useful approach and interpretation of what’s going on in the world. It may be better at doing that On the national and international level than almost any other newspaper.
But like every other human institution, Including the church, it isn’t perfect and on a certain matter here, it screwed up.
I don't say I will stop reading their articles. I won't pay for them, but I'll link to them online and discuss the ones I'm allowed to read. I do the same thing with the Atlantic, the New Yorker, WaPo, the Chicago Tribune, the Federalist, WSJ, FOXNews, etc. etc. Regardless of whether this Sen. Cotton was a major screwup, the fact remains that the entire culture of the NYT is one that doesn't see conservative Republicans as within the pale of mainstream civil discourse. It is't any particular article, it is the operative worldview behind their selection of what counts as newsworthy, who will be asked for comment, and so forth that makes the NYT such a reliable echo-chamber of the Left. Only those who realize that can read it profitably; others are simply being blindly led.   
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Dave Benke on June 08, 2020, 06:55:35 PM
I'll admit that I'm willing to pay if only for David Brooks.  I always look forward to his columns.

We subscribe to the NY Times, and are not considering dropping our subscription.  At the same time I buy the Post for the Sports Section - great sports reporters.  Except lately.

Dave Benke
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: David Garner on June 08, 2020, 07:10:03 PM
I'd much sooner be called a "trailer park redneck" than have anything to do with the snooty, smug elitists who look down their noses on such people.  And I didn't vote for Trump.

Trailer park rednecks work for a living and generally don't look down on others.  They don't consider themselves the arbiter of what other people's interests are or how they should vote or think to protect those interests.  Generally, they're too busy going to work and attending their kids ballgames and such.  Since a favorite sneer of the left lately is "very Christian of you" (all sarcasm intended), I'll just say the boomerang has taken flight.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on June 08, 2020, 07:53:31 PM
An article in Vox by Zach Beauchamp  finds flaws in the Weiss twittering. (My emphasis added)

"...Rather, it’s a question of how journalists should think about their roles as guardians of mainstream discourse.


And you're worried about the "authoritarian" in the White House?

Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: James J Eivan on June 08, 2020, 08:15:17 PM
An article in Vox by Zach Beauchamp  finds flaws in the Weiss twittering. (My emphasis added)

"...Rather, it’s a question of how journalists should think about their roles as guardians of mainstream discourse.


And you're worried about the "authoritarian" in the White House?
It's more of Rev Austin agreeing with the NYC Times action   ... Disagreeing with the President ... and being appalled that the whole world doesn't see it his way.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Charles Austin on June 08, 2020, 08:57:51 PM
Some ironies abound.
There are folks here who wanted an article in Lutheran Forum retracted and some cancelled their subscriptions.
There are folks here who would legislate matters of sexuality and reproduction, even if those matters conflicted with the religious convictions of others.
There are those here continually pronouncing judgement on "liberal culture" or "the world today" or "Democrats" or a bunch of other societal constructs, maybe journalism, maybe academia, maybe our public schools.
There are folks here eager to legislate their "ways" of living, doing business, running schools, getting married or having children.
And this humble correspondent is supposed to be knee-shaky, heart-quivery worried about "progressives" becoming authoritarian?
The New York Times tells me what is going on and I am quite free to make up my own mind as to what to think about it. You are too, but it seems you fear the brain-washing, overpowering, mind-controlling power of the "mainstream media" that has now tethered the minds of the populace and is leading them to a progressive perdition.
I have learned to set aside my initial fear that everyone actually believes every bit of horse-poop dropped from the mouth of Rush Limbaugh et al.
If the editorial pages of The New York Time were so powerful, wouldn't Democrats be in control right now?
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Pastor Ken Kimball on June 08, 2020, 10:06:49 PM
Actually it seems that in most of the cities with troubled police departments and where protests have been accompanied or followed by rioting, that Democrats are in control.  Minneapolis, New York, LA, Chicago, Baltimore,  etc.  How's that working out?   And now a new experiment is proposed in those places with the defunding/disbanding of police departments. 
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: pastorg1@aol.com on June 09, 2020, 12:13:55 AM
Easy-peesy way to check out the dismantlement of PDs:

The local PD announces which neighborhood will have no police coverage that night. To be fair, start with the wealthier parts of town. Pick another neighborhood the following night and keep going until the vigilantes arrive.

Peter (Robespierre was an aristocrat) Garrison
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Charles Austin on June 09, 2020, 12:20:06 AM
Let us not be intentionally stupid. The discussion about changes in the police force does not mean abolishing law enforcement. It does not mean there would be no police.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: J. Thomas Shelley on June 09, 2020, 12:44:31 AM
Let us not be intentionally stupid. The discussion about changes in the police force does not mean abolishing law enforcement. It does not mean there would be no police.

Exactly.

In many States that would mean the County Sheriff's Department taking over.  Sheriffs are elected on four year terms and much of their staff is subject to at-will employment with possible termination every fourth year, depending on the winds of political fortune.

In some States that would mean that the State Police/State Patrol would take over.  With only the top command subject to political appointment enforcement is likely to be more apolitical or heavy-handed...take your pick. 

In some of those States having the SP take over would mean no more enforcement of local ordinances.  No big deal, until your neighbor's tethered dog howls all through the night and the only enforcement option would be a LOCAL noise control or animal control ordinance. 

And, by the way, local parking ordinances typically carry fines of <$50.00.   State level vehicle code parking fines (with costs) can easily exceed $100.00.

You get what you pay for.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Terry W Culler on June 09, 2020, 07:27:58 AM
News outlets of all kinds are profit directed enterprises.  If you want to change their positions the best way to do it is to hit their pocketbooks.  Cancel subscriptions.  Contact people you do business with and ask them not to advertise in their venues.  Transfer your support to other organizations.  Of course that's getting harder to do with newspapers as so many have bitten the dust, but it's still possible in many places.  The NYT has the right to do what it wants with submitted articles, editorial opinions, etc.  But it frankly has far less leverage than it used to.  Rather than complain--act.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: David Garner on June 09, 2020, 07:53:08 AM
News outlets of all kinds are profit directed enterprises.  If you want to change their positions the best way to do it is to hit their pocketbooks.  Cancel subscriptions.  Contact people you do business with and ask them not to advertise in their venues.  Transfer your support to other organizations.  Of course that's getting harder to do with newspapers as so many have bitten the dust, but it's still possible in many places.  The NYT has the right to do what it wants with submitted articles, editorial opinions, etc.  But it frankly has far less leverage than it used to.  Rather than complain--act.

Or, as I do, ignore and speak out.

My brother loves to cite the NYT as "proof" of his positions on various things (except the one time I cited them back to him and he said "well, the NYT was wrong then").  Every time he does I tell him their coverage carries zero weight with me.  They lie.  They lie intentionally.  They tell us they lie (particularly with this whole gatekeeper/guardians of the public discourse nonsense).  They have an agenda.  I'm not on board with it.  They don't get to be the arbiters of truth when they slant their coverage as they do.  Just taking the Kavanaugh matter versus the Biden matter as an example, it is apparent to anyone who has an ounce of integrity that they covered the two stories radically differently, as did most of the news media.  So why bother assuming anything they print is accurate, when we know they make coverage decisions and bury the lede in order to push a partisan agenda?  We can go on and talk about abortion policy and gun control or whatever else.  The simple fact is, the NYT is a Democrat-left organization.  They are a sounding board for the Democratic Party.  Pretending they are otherwise is stupid.  People who try to convince you they are otherwise are liars.

I'd wager the NYT fans here don't listen to Rush Limbaugh or read The Federalist or even National Review, and on the rare occasion they do, they discount them immediately.  That is, apparently, all well and good (I certainly think it is).  But the only difference between those outlets and the NYT is everyone acknowledges they come from a position and slant the news.  The NYT pretends to be above it all and so very, very trustworthy, when in fact they have an agenda and actively push it not only on the opinion page, but in their news coverage.  They are, therefore, lying liars who lie and not to be trusted.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: peter_speckhard on June 09, 2020, 07:56:54 AM
One problem with public action like boycotts today is that, while they might work in a healthy society, they can be counterproductive and produce the opposite of their intended effect in an extremely divided society. Many industries, but especially purveyors of news, can only hope to appeal to a fraction of people, and the more the appeal to one half the less they appeal to the other half. If Trump called for a boycott of, say, Walmart, suddenly liberals who hate Walmart would be going out of their way to support it. If Colin Kaepernick and BLM demand a boycott of Cheerios, lots of people will be sure to buy Cheerios. So prefer not to boycott, at least publicly. If I am too disturbed by a company’s actions to patronize it, I will privately tell the manager why I won’t be going there anymore, and perhaps privately spread the word to my friends and family. But I won’t try to make a public deal out of it.

Also, I don’t watch movies for the actors’ politics in the first place, so their idiotic politics don’t bother me as long as they can act. I don’t enjoy the taste of political ice cream, so I judge Ben and Jerry on price and taste, not on what they plan to do with the profits.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Charles Austin on June 09, 2020, 08:11:23 AM
Gee, David Garner, Tell us how you really feel 
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: David Garner on June 09, 2020, 08:21:13 AM
One problem with public action like boycotts today is that, while they might work in a healthy society, they can be counterproductive and produce the opposite of their intended effect in an extremely divided society. Many industries, but especially purveyors of news, can only hope to appeal to a fraction of people, and the more the appeal to one half the less they appeal to the other half. If Trump called for a boycott of, say, Walmart, suddenly liberals who hate Walmart would be going out of their way to support it. If Colin Kaepernick and BLM demand a boycott of Cheerios, lots of people will be sure to buy Cheerios. So prefer not to boycott, at least publicly. If I am too disturbed by a company’s actions to patronize it, I will privately tell the manager why I won’t be going there anymore, and perhaps privately spread the word to my friends and family. But I won’t try to make a public deal out of it.

Also, I don’t watch movies for the actors’ politics in the first place, so their idiotic politics don’t bother me as long as they can act. I don’t enjoy the taste of political ice cream, so I judge Ben and Jerry on price and taste, not on what they plan to do with the profits.

For me, it isn't really a matter of boycotting.  What I hope to accomplish is the realization on the part of my liberal friends who constantly apologize for the legacy media that we're not falling for the banana in the tailpipe anymore.  It's a more direct tactic than boycotting, which is somewhat passive aggressive to me.  Rather, I am in the business of delegitimizing.

Instead of responding with "I canceled my subscription to the NYT," I respond with "I give zero credence to anything the NYT prints."

Now, if the NYT wants to pivot and market itself as The Federalist and National Review and others on the right, or The Nation or Mother Jones or Rolling Stone on the left, then I might be able to grant some legitimacy.  I frequently read publications I disagree with.  I want the perspective of the other side.  What I won't do is give legitimacy to a supposed "newspaper" that in fact is a marketing arm of the Democratic Party.  They are not a newspaper.  They are advocates.  They should be treated as such.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Dan Fienen on June 09, 2020, 08:36:28 AM
I don't know that I ever gave Rush Limbaugh credence.  He is a news entertainer nothing more. I long thought that Bill O' Reilly deserved an Emmy for acting for his ability to intone his signature "Fair and Balanced" with a straight face. So why should I blindly allow the NYT to tell me what to think when they blatantly are partisan, burry stories that are unfavorable to their chosen side, and don't cover denials 9f accusations against those they disfavor.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: peter_speckhard on June 09, 2020, 08:37:18 AM
I think cancelling a subscription does send a message. I just wouldn’t do so as part of an organized public call for people to cancel subscriptions. Grass roots action can only really work one leaf of grass at a time.

The problem I have with saying I give zero credence to anything it prints is that a) it isn’t true in my case, and b) the person I would be saying that to has probably read many perfectly reasonable articles in the Times. So I would in their view simply be saying something about myself. Rather, I say I don’t pay for the Times, but I do read it when available for free and read it the way I would any left wing publication.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: peter_speckhard on June 09, 2020, 08:42:29 AM
I don't know that I ever gave Rush Limbaugh credence.  He is a news entertainer nothing more. I long thought that Bill O' Reilly deserved an Emmy for acting for his ability to intone his signature "Fair and Balanced" with a straight face. So why should I blindly allow the NYT to tell me what to think when they blatantly are partisan, burry stories that are unfavorable to their chosen side, and don't cover denials 9f accusations against those they disfavor.
I think ought to rethink Limbaugh. I listened when he first came out because he was the only source I had for a different take on the news. He treated as big stories the things that mattered to me but would be buried by the newspapers. Once I got the internet in my house, I stopped listening. I could get everything he was giving me in a fraction of the time, on my schedule, and without annoying commercials. But in recent years when I’ve heard him, yes there is the shtick of an entertainer, but I think he is far smarter and more insightful than people give him credit for. He could be a serious social critic rather than an entertaining one, but he enjoys doing what he does too much.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Steven W Bohler on June 09, 2020, 08:58:19 AM
Let us not be intentionally stupid. The discussion about changes in the police force does not mean abolishing law enforcement. It does not mean there would be no police.

Exactly.

In many States that would mean the County Sheriff's Department taking over.  Sheriffs are elected on four year terms and much of their staff is subject to at-will employment with possible termination every fourth year, depending on the winds of political fortune.

In some States that would mean that the State Police/State Patrol would take over.  With only the top command subject to political appointment enforcement is likely to be more apolitical or heavy-handed...take your pick. 

In some of those States having the SP take over would mean no more enforcement of local ordinances.  No big deal, until your neighbor's tethered dog howls all through the night and the only enforcement option would be a LOCAL noise control or animal control ordinance. 

And, by the way, local parking ordinances typically carry fines of <$50.00.   State level vehicle code parking fines (with costs) can easily exceed $100.00.

You get what you pay for.

Yes, and if the county sheriff's department takes over, then that means the rest of the county will have to foot the bill for the city's law enforcement.  While, at the same time, freeing up the money heretofore allocated by the city for law enforcement for other projects -- which benefit the city but perhaps not the rest of the county.  Nice.  You pay my bills, you take the physical risk, you lose law enforcement resources for your part of the county. And we get to spend the money on stuff just for us.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Steven W Bohler on June 09, 2020, 08:59:29 AM

There are folks here who would legislate matters of sexuality and reproduction, even if those matters conflicted with the religious convictions of others.
Naturally Rev Austin is extremely disingenuous ... and he well knows it ... the desired legislation has nothing to do with ‘sexuality’ ... it has to do with legislating against murder ... nothing to do with ‘sexuality’ ... simply a life matter. Rev Austin, you are dishonest on this issue ... and deliberately dishonest.
I have learned to set aside my initial fear that everyone actually believes every bit of horse-poop dropped from the mouth of Rush Limbaugh et al.
Apparently journalistic gutter level language has been introduced to this forum by our sometime journalist ... one wonders how Rev Austin will react to forum member’s gratuitous use of Autsinique vocabulary when referencing Rev Austin and/or his horrendously bias and partisan rag.

Or if the moderator will chide him as he did those who used the word "asinine".
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: James J Eivan on June 09, 2020, 09:57:38 AM
Gee, David Garner, Tell us how you really feel 
Regrettably using the Austinique approved language ... Readers of NY Times are consumers of horse poop. Sorry folks ... thank Rev Austin's for the deteriorating level of forum discourse  ... perhaps Rev Austin is more familiar with cat poop😂😎
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: James_Gale on June 09, 2020, 10:25:52 AM
Let us not be intentionally stupid. The discussion about changes in the police force does not mean abolishing law enforcement. It does not mean there would be no police.


A veto-proof majority of the Minneapolis City Council say otherwise.  "Disband" and "dismantle" are not ambiguous words.  The "discussion" is very much about eliminating law enforcement.  One council member proposed replacing police officers with social workers as first responders to reports of crime. 


That said, I agree with you that Minneapolis ultimately will not disband or dismantle its police department; at most, it will change the department's name and reorganize a bit.  But by expressly pledging to do so, the council majority either are lying or are too caught up in the moment to realize the "stupidity" (as you put it) of what they propose.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: D. Engebretson on June 09, 2020, 10:33:48 AM
Let us not be intentionally stupid. The discussion about changes in the police force does not mean abolishing law enforcement. It does not mean there would be no police.


A veto-proof majority of the Minneapolis City Council say otherwise.  "Disband" and "dismantle" are not ambiguous words.  The "discussion" is very much about eliminating law enforcement.  One council member proposed replacing police officers with social workers as first responders to reports of crime. 


That said, I agree with you that Minneapolis ultimately will not disband or dismantle its police department; at most, it will change the department's name and reorganize a bit.  But by expressly pledging to do so, the council majority either are lying or are too caught up in the moment to realize the "stupidity" (as you put it) of what they propose.

After their simple slogan was out they decided to calm the waters a bit by reminding folks that some police presence would remain, albeit smaller.  They want to farm out some issues they feel social workers and others would be better equipped to handle, like domestic abuse and drug related issues.  Unfortunately they are caught up in a fairly naive view of law enforcement by pushing off potentially dangerous situations onto untrained and unprotected workers.  I think that if they do what they say they are going to do, the learning curve will be painful for the unwitting workers unnecessarily placed in harm's way.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Dan Fienen on June 09, 2020, 10:50:09 AM
In the small Nebraska community where I served at one time, the local ministerial association organized a group of pastors to serve as volunteer police chaplains.  They got us some training and some equipment including police radios. One of the things they had us do was domestic disturbance calls. A police officer would respond first, asses the situation and if he deemed it escalated from violence, call in the chaplain, who had a radio and could call for backup if needed. But the initial contact was still the police in case violence needed to be dealt with.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on June 09, 2020, 11:04:42 AM
Let us not be intentionally stupid. The discussion about changes in the police force does not mean abolishing law enforcement. It does not mean there would be no police.

A veto-proof majority of the Minneapolis City Council say otherwise.  "Disband" and "dismantle" are not ambiguous words.  The "discussion" is very much about eliminating law enforcement.  One council member proposed replacing police officers with social workers as first responders to reports of crime. 

That said, I agree with you that Minneapolis ultimately will not disband or dismantle its police department; at most, it will change the department's name and reorganize a bit.  But by expressly pledging to do so, the council majority either are lying or are too caught up in the moment to realize the "stupidity" (as you put it) of what they propose.

"Speaking on CNN’s "Cuomo Prime Time" Monday night, [Mpls Council President] Lisa Bender took the idea of disbanding the police a step further.

Host Chris Cuomo told her: “When you say you see someday being police-free that sounds aspirational, a utopian concept where nobody’s committing any crime, because as long as these communities are being preyed upon, both from within and without, there’s gonna have to be good men and women willing to step up to keep people safe.”

She replied: “I think the idea of having a police-free future is very aspirational, and I am willing to stand with community members who are asking us to think of that as the goal.”
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: David Garner on June 09, 2020, 11:06:41 AM
Let us not be intentionally stupid. The discussion about changes in the police force does not mean abolishing law enforcement. It does not mean there would be no police.

A veto-proof majority of the Minneapolis City Council say otherwise.  "Disband" and "dismantle" are not ambiguous words.  The "discussion" is very much about eliminating law enforcement.  One council member proposed replacing police officers with social workers as first responders to reports of crime. 

That said, I agree with you that Minneapolis ultimately will not disband or dismantle its police department; at most, it will change the department's name and reorganize a bit.  But by expressly pledging to do so, the council majority either are lying or are too caught up in the moment to realize the "stupidity" (as you put it) of what they propose.

"Speaking on CNN’s "Cuomo Prime Time" Monday night, [Mpls Council President] Lisa Bender took the idea of disbanding the police a step further.

Host Chris Cuomo told her: “When you say you see someday being police-free that sounds aspirational, a utopian concept where nobody’s committing any crime, because as long as these communities are being preyed upon, both from within and without, there’s gonna have to be good men and women willing to step up to keep people safe.”

She replied: “I think the idea of having a police-free future is very aspirational, and I am willing to stand with community members who are asking us to think of that as the goal.”

The main problem with leftist thinking in America is too many of them think man is perfectible by rules.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on June 09, 2020, 11:10:51 AM
I doubt that Dick will reprimand you because you didn't use the reprehensible "asinine," but ... Really, Charles?! Thinly veiled F-bomb?!

You're not in NJ anymore. You're in MN. Act like it, and behave yourself.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: pastorg1@aol.com on June 09, 2020, 11:18:58 AM
Let us not be intentionally stupid. The discussion about changes in the police force does not mean abolishing law enforcement. It does not mean there would be no police.

Happily, I’m intentionally stupid.

Peter (Duh) Garrison
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: James J Eivan on June 09, 2020, 11:21:19 AM
Let us not be intentionally stupid. The discussion about changes in the police force does not mean abolishing law enforcement. It does not mean there would be no police.
A veto-proof majority of the Minneapolis City Council say otherwise.  "Disband" and "dismantle" are not ambiguous words.  The "discussion" is very much about eliminating law enforcement.  One council member proposed replacing police officers with social workers as first responders to reports of crime. 

That said, I agree with you that Minneapolis ultimately will not disband or dismantle its police department; at most, it will change the department's name and reorganize a bit.  But by expressly pledging to do so, the council majority either are lying or are too caught up in the moment to realize the "stupidity" (as you put it) of what they propose.
After their simple slogan was out they decided to calm the waters a bit by reminding folks that some police presence would remain, albeit smaller.  They want to farm out some issues they feel social workers and others would be better equipped to handle, like domestic abuse and drug related issues.  Unfortunately they are caught up in a fairly naive view of law enforcement by pushing off potentially dangerous situations onto untrained and unprotected workers.  I think that if they do what they say they are going to do, the learning curve will be painful for the unwitting workers unnecessarily placed in harm's way.
The ‘tolerant’ Minneapolis crowd ask the mayor if he would defund the police, When he answered no, the crowd ‘shamed’ him away.  It is clear that this group is demanding full and complete defunding of the police.


Rev Austin’s MO is to excoriated with fecal language those with whom he disagrees with ... only placing the best construction/benefit of the doubt on those with whom he sympathizes and/or agrees with.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: James_Gale on June 09, 2020, 11:26:48 AM
Let us not be intentionally stupid. The discussion about changes in the police force does not mean abolishing law enforcement. It does not mean there would be no police.


A veto-proof majority of the Minneapolis City Council say otherwise.  "Disband" and "dismantle" are not ambiguous words.  The "discussion" is very much about eliminating law enforcement.  One council member proposed replacing police officers with social workers as first responders to reports of crime. 


That said, I agree with you that Minneapolis ultimately will not disband or dismantle its police department; at most, it will change the department's name and reorganize a bit.  But by expressly pledging to do so, the council majority either are lying or are too caught up in the moment to realize the "stupidity" (as you put it) of what they propose.

After their simple slogan was out they decided to calm the waters a bit by reminding folks that some police presence would remain, albeit smaller.  They want to farm out some issues they feel social workers and others would be better equipped to handle, like domestic abuse and drug related issues.  Unfortunately they are caught up in a fairly naive view of law enforcement by pushing off potentially dangerous situations onto untrained and unprotected workers.  I think that if they do what they say they are going to do, the learning curve will be painful for the unwitting workers unnecessarily placed in harm's way.


The learning curve already has been painful.  Or it would have been had anyone bothered to learn from experience.


Mayor Frey has been pushing more relaxed policing policies since taking office in 2018.  Since then, according to statistics pulled together by the WSJ (here's a link for those who can get past the paywall (https://www.wsj.com/articles/defund-police-watch-crime-return-11591658454?mod=opinion_lead_pos1)), violent crime in Minneapolis is up 16% since then and property crime is up 20%.  Year over year, compared with January through May last year, homicides are up 60%, car-jackings are up 45% and burglaries are up 28%.  The crime-rate increases in Minneapolis are about twice as high in the third precinct, where members of racial minorities live in high concentrations.


The same thing is happening in other cities that already have scaled back policing efforts.  The murder rate in Harlem is up 160% over last year.


As I posted yesterday, during the last weekend in May, 85 people were shot in Chicago, 24 of whom died.  The weekend before, 49 were shot and 10 died.  The overwhelming majority of the victims were black.  Activists wondered why the police had not been more active--more assertive. 


In short, we know from tragic experience that reduction in law enforcement exacts a heavy price indeed.  We also know that people from racial minority groups pay much or most of that price.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on June 09, 2020, 01:17:26 PM
In the small Nebraska community where I served at one time, the local ministerial association organized a group of pastors to serve as volunteer police chaplains.  They got us some training and some equipment including police radios. One of the things they had us do was domestic disturbance calls. A police officer would respond first, asses the situation and if he deemed it escalated from violence, call in the chaplain, who had a radio and could call for backup if needed. But the initial contact was still the police in case violence needed to be dealt with.


A deputy sheriff told me that the first thing they are trained to do in domestic disturbance calls is to try and reduce the tension in the room. They are to try and be a calming presence. He also said that whenever the situation is bad enough that law enforcement is called in, somebody is going to be arrested.


The idea of being a "non-anxious presence" is a key one in dealing with family social systems - including the "family" that's known as "congregation" or "work-place".
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: jebutler on June 09, 2020, 01:18:47 PM
Let us not be intentionally stupid. The discussion about changes in the police force does not mean abolishing law enforcement. It does not mean there would be no police.

Please define the following words:

Defund

Dismantle

Disband

Because these are the words that politicians have been using.

Or are we playing Humpty Dumpty and words mean whatever we want them to mean?
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on June 09, 2020, 01:20:31 PM
Let us not be intentionally stupid. The discussion about changes in the police force does not mean abolishing law enforcement. It does not mean there would be no police.

A veto-proof majority of the Minneapolis City Council say otherwise.  "Disband" and "dismantle" are not ambiguous words.  The "discussion" is very much about eliminating law enforcement.  One council member proposed replacing police officers with social workers as first responders to reports of crime. 

That said, I agree with you that Minneapolis ultimately will not disband or dismantle its police department; at most, it will change the department's name and reorganize a bit.  But by expressly pledging to do so, the council majority either are lying or are too caught up in the moment to realize the "stupidity" (as you put it) of what they propose.

"Speaking on CNN’s "Cuomo Prime Time" Monday night, [Mpls Council President] Lisa Bender took the idea of disbanding the police a step further.

Host Chris Cuomo told her: “When you say you see someday being police-free that sounds aspirational, a utopian concept where nobody’s committing any crime, because as long as these communities are being preyed upon, both from within and without, there’s gonna have to be good men and women willing to step up to keep people safe.”

She replied: “I think the idea of having a police-free future is very aspirational, and I am willing to stand with community members who are asking us to think of that as the goal.”

The main problem with leftist thinking in America is too many of them think man is perfectible by rules.


So, the Ten Commandments have no place in American (or Christian) lives? Why do you believe God gave his people the 613 rules in the Torah?
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on June 09, 2020, 01:33:24 PM
Let us not be intentionally stupid. The discussion about changes in the police force does not mean abolishing law enforcement. It does not mean there would be no police.

A veto-proof majority of the Minneapolis City Council say otherwise.  "Disband" and "dismantle" are not ambiguous words.  The "discussion" is very much about eliminating law enforcement.  One council member proposed replacing police officers with social workers as first responders to reports of crime. 

That said, I agree with you that Minneapolis ultimately will not disband or dismantle its police department; at most, it will change the department's name and reorganize a bit.  But by expressly pledging to do so, the council majority either are lying or are too caught up in the moment to realize the "stupidity" (as you put it) of what they propose.

"Speaking on CNN’s "Cuomo Prime Time" Monday night, [Mpls Council President] Lisa Bender took the idea of disbanding the police a step further.

Host Chris Cuomo told her: “When you say you see someday being police-free that sounds aspirational, a utopian concept where nobody’s committing any crime, because as long as these communities are being preyed upon, both from within and without, there’s gonna have to be good men and women willing to step up to keep people safe.”

She replied: “I think the idea of having a police-free future is very aspirational, and I am willing to stand with community members who are asking us to think of that as the goal.”

The main problem with leftist thinking in America is too many of them think man is perfectible by rules.

So, the Ten Commandments have no place in American (or Christian) lives? Why do you believe God gave his people the 613 rules in the Torah?

My, you are on quite the illogical role today! Mr. Garner stated nothing for which anyone would come to your conclusion.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on June 09, 2020, 01:48:02 PM
Let us not be intentionally stupid. The discussion about changes in the police force does not mean abolishing law enforcement. It does not mean there would be no police.

A veto-proof majority of the Minneapolis City Council say otherwise.  "Disband" and "dismantle" are not ambiguous words.  The "discussion" is very much about eliminating law enforcement.  One council member proposed replacing police officers with social workers as first responders to reports of crime. 

That said, I agree with you that Minneapolis ultimately will not disband or dismantle its police department; at most, it will change the department's name and reorganize a bit.  But by expressly pledging to do so, the council majority either are lying or are too caught up in the moment to realize the "stupidity" (as you put it) of what they propose.

"Speaking on CNN’s "Cuomo Prime Time" Monday night, [Mpls Council President] Lisa Bender took the idea of disbanding the police a step further.

Host Chris Cuomo told her: “When you say you see someday being police-free that sounds aspirational, a utopian concept where nobody’s committing any crime, because as long as these communities are being preyed upon, both from within and without, there’s gonna have to be good men and women willing to step up to keep people safe.”

She replied: “I think the idea of having a police-free future is very aspirational, and I am willing to stand with community members who are asking us to think of that as the goal.”

The main problem with leftist thinking in America is too many of them think man is perfectible by rules.

So, the Ten Commandments have no place in American (or Christian) lives? Why do you believe God gave his people the 613 rules in the Torah?

My, you are on quite the illogical role today! Mr. Garner stated nothing for which anyone would come to your conclusion.


What conclusion? I asked questions? What are your answers? What's the purpose of rules? (Note, I'm still asking questions not making conclusions.) It seems quite illogical to me to turn a question into a conclusion. There's a difference between ? and . and the end of a sentence.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on June 09, 2020, 01:58:27 PM
Let us not be intentionally stupid. The discussion about changes in the police force does not mean abolishing law enforcement. It does not mean there would be no police.

A veto-proof majority of the Minneapolis City Council say otherwise.  "Disband" and "dismantle" are not ambiguous words.  The "discussion" is very much about eliminating law enforcement.  One council member proposed replacing police officers with social workers as first responders to reports of crime. 

That said, I agree with you that Minneapolis ultimately will not disband or dismantle its police department; at most, it will change the department's name and reorganize a bit.  But by expressly pledging to do so, the council majority either are lying or are too caught up in the moment to realize the "stupidity" (as you put it) of what they propose.

"Speaking on CNN’s "Cuomo Prime Time" Monday night, [Mpls Council President] Lisa Bender took the idea of disbanding the police a step further.

Host Chris Cuomo told her: “When you say you see someday being police-free that sounds aspirational, a utopian concept where nobody’s committing any crime, because as long as these communities are being preyed upon, both from within and without, there’s gonna have to be good men and women willing to step up to keep people safe.”

She replied: “I think the idea of having a police-free future is very aspirational, and I am willing to stand with community members who are asking us to think of that as the goal.”

The main problem with leftist thinking in America is too many of them think man is perfectible by rules.

So, the Ten Commandments have no place in American (or Christian) lives? Why do you believe God gave his people the 613 rules in the Torah?

My, you are on quite the illogical role today! Mr. Garner stated nothing for which anyone would come to your conclusion.

What conclusion? I asked questions? What are your answers? What's the purpose of rules? (Note, I'm still asking questions not making conclusions.) It seems quite illogical to me to turn a question into a conclusion. There's a difference between ? and . and the end of a sentence.

So, that's why you use such illogical methods. It's logic 101, Brian. Of course a conclusion can be in the form of a question.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: David Garner on June 09, 2020, 02:05:00 PM
Let us not be intentionally stupid. The discussion about changes in the police force does not mean abolishing law enforcement. It does not mean there would be no police.

A veto-proof majority of the Minneapolis City Council say otherwise.  "Disband" and "dismantle" are not ambiguous words.  The "discussion" is very much about eliminating law enforcement.  One council member proposed replacing police officers with social workers as first responders to reports of crime. 

That said, I agree with you that Minneapolis ultimately will not disband or dismantle its police department; at most, it will change the department's name and reorganize a bit.  But by expressly pledging to do so, the council majority either are lying or are too caught up in the moment to realize the "stupidity" (as you put it) of what they propose.

"Speaking on CNN’s "Cuomo Prime Time" Monday night, [Mpls Council President] Lisa Bender took the idea of disbanding the police a step further.

Host Chris Cuomo told her: “When you say you see someday being police-free that sounds aspirational, a utopian concept where nobody’s committing any crime, because as long as these communities are being preyed upon, both from within and without, there’s gonna have to be good men and women willing to step up to keep people safe.”

She replied: “I think the idea of having a police-free future is very aspirational, and I am willing to stand with community members who are asking us to think of that as the goal.”

The main problem with leftist thinking in America is too many of them think man is perfectible by rules.


So, the Ten Commandments have no place in American (or Christian) lives? Why do you believe God gave his people the 613 rules in the Torah?

Do you really think the Ten Commandments perfect mankind?
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on June 09, 2020, 06:10:40 PM
Let us not be intentionally stupid. The discussion about changes in the police force does not mean abolishing law enforcement. It does not mean there would be no police.

A veto-proof majority of the Minneapolis City Council say otherwise.  "Disband" and "dismantle" are not ambiguous words.  The "discussion" is very much about eliminating law enforcement.  One council member proposed replacing police officers with social workers as first responders to reports of crime. 

That said, I agree with you that Minneapolis ultimately will not disband or dismantle its police department; at most, it will change the department's name and reorganize a bit.  But by expressly pledging to do so, the council majority either are lying or are too caught up in the moment to realize the "stupidity" (as you put it) of what they propose.

"Speaking on CNN’s "Cuomo Prime Time" Monday night, [Mpls Council President] Lisa Bender took the idea of disbanding the police a step further.

Host Chris Cuomo told her: “When you say you see someday being police-free that sounds aspirational, a utopian concept where nobody’s committing any crime, because as long as these communities are being preyed upon, both from within and without, there’s gonna have to be good men and women willing to step up to keep people safe.”

She replied: “I think the idea of having a police-free future is very aspirational, and I am willing to stand with community members who are asking us to think of that as the goal.”

The main problem with leftist thinking in America is too many of them think man is perfectible by rules.

So, the Ten Commandments have no place in American (or Christian) lives? Why do you believe God gave his people the 613 rules in the Torah?

My, you are on quite the illogical role today! Mr. Garner stated nothing for which anyone would come to your conclusion.

What conclusion? I asked questions? What are your answers? What's the purpose of rules? (Note, I'm still asking questions not making conclusions.) It seems quite illogical to me to turn a question into a conclusion. There's a difference between ? and . and the end of a sentence.

So, that's why you use such illogical methods. It's logic 101, Brian. Of course a conclusion can be in the form of a question.


Please enlighten me as to the conclusion I was making by the question. Oh, and explain why you think it's my conclusion from the question rather than a conclusion you made about me because of the question.


And now for a statement: Your attempt to know what's in my head does more to reveal what's going on in your head than in mine.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on June 09, 2020, 06:13:17 PM
Let us not be intentionally stupid. The discussion about changes in the police force does not mean abolishing law enforcement. It does not mean there would be no police.

A veto-proof majority of the Minneapolis City Council say otherwise.  "Disband" and "dismantle" are not ambiguous words.  The "discussion" is very much about eliminating law enforcement.  One council member proposed replacing police officers with social workers as first responders to reports of crime. 

That said, I agree with you that Minneapolis ultimately will not disband or dismantle its police department; at most, it will change the department's name and reorganize a bit.  But by expressly pledging to do so, the council majority either are lying or are too caught up in the moment to realize the "stupidity" (as you put it) of what they propose.

"Speaking on CNN’s "Cuomo Prime Time" Monday night, [Mpls Council President] Lisa Bender took the idea of disbanding the police a step further.

Host Chris Cuomo told her: “When you say you see someday being police-free that sounds aspirational, a utopian concept where nobody’s committing any crime, because as long as these communities are being preyed upon, both from within and without, there’s gonna have to be good men and women willing to step up to keep people safe.”

She replied: “I think the idea of having a police-free future is very aspirational, and I am willing to stand with community members who are asking us to think of that as the goal.”

The main problem with leftist thinking in America is too many of them think man is perfectible by rules.


So, the Ten Commandments have no place in American (or Christian) lives? Why do you believe God gave his people the 613 rules in the Torah?

Do you really think the Ten Commandments perfect mankind?


No. There are other reasons why God gave the commandments and why faithful people seek to keep them. There are other reasons why governments impose laws and why people seek to keep them. Becoming perfect is not one of those reasons - and I consider myself one of those leftist thinking Americans. I object to the mischaracterization.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on June 09, 2020, 08:04:55 PM
You are talking in circles, Brian.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on June 10, 2020, 03:10:23 AM
You are talking in circles, Brian.


'Cause I'm well-rounded.


Actually, I don't understand your critique. What circle are you hearing, 'cause I don't see my writing one?
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: David Garner on June 10, 2020, 06:48:30 AM
Let us not be intentionally stupid. The discussion about changes in the police force does not mean abolishing law enforcement. It does not mean there would be no police.

A veto-proof majority of the Minneapolis City Council say otherwise.  "Disband" and "dismantle" are not ambiguous words.  The "discussion" is very much about eliminating law enforcement.  One council member proposed replacing police officers with social workers as first responders to reports of crime. 

That said, I agree with you that Minneapolis ultimately will not disband or dismantle its police department; at most, it will change the department's name and reorganize a bit.  But by expressly pledging to do so, the council majority either are lying or are too caught up in the moment to realize the "stupidity" (as you put it) of what they propose.

"Speaking on CNN’s "Cuomo Prime Time" Monday night, [Mpls Council President] Lisa Bender took the idea of disbanding the police a step further.

Host Chris Cuomo told her: “When you say you see someday being police-free that sounds aspirational, a utopian concept where nobody’s committing any crime, because as long as these communities are being preyed upon, both from within and without, there’s gonna have to be good men and women willing to step up to keep people safe.”

She replied: “I think the idea of having a police-free future is very aspirational, and I am willing to stand with community members who are asking us to think of that as the goal.”

The main problem with leftist thinking in America is too many of them think man is perfectible by rules.


So, the Ten Commandments have no place in American (or Christian) lives? Why do you believe God gave his people the 613 rules in the Torah?

Do you really think the Ten Commandments perfect mankind?


No. There are other reasons why God gave the commandments and why faithful people seek to keep them. There are other reasons why governments impose laws and why people seek to keep them. Becoming perfect is not one of those reasons - and I consider myself one of those leftist thinking Americans. I object to the mischaracterization.

You being an exception doesn’t demonstrate any micharacterization. A hit dog is the one that hollers. If it doesn’t apply to you, no need to yelp.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Mark Brown on July 14, 2020, 12:10:25 PM
I can't say stunning anymore because it is clear what the NYT's has become.  Neither can I really say powerful, because I doubt even this would cause any reflection by those left.  But this resignation letter from Bari Weiss should be both of those things stunning and powerful.  There just aren't ears to hear at the NYT. https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter (https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter)

Quote
Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.

My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.

There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong.

Maybe I should have cross-posted on mobbing... (It might also have some reflection on that phenomenon.  Why those who are generally "on the right" just couldn't believe anything about that, while it was those generally "on the left" who took it immediately as gospel.  Political cleansing of formerly broadly liberal institutions is a much much bigger thing on the left.)
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: David Garner on July 14, 2020, 12:20:18 PM
I can't say stunning anymore because it is clear what the NYT's has become.  Neither can I really say powerful, because I doubt even this would cause any reflection by those left.  But this resignation letter from Bari Weiss should be both of those things stunning and powerful.  There just aren't ears to hear at the NYT. https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter (https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter)

Quote
Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.

My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.

There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong.

Maybe I should have cross-posted on mobbing... (It might also have some reflection on that phenomenon.  Why those who are generally "on the right" just couldn't believe anything about that, while it was those generally "on the left" who took it immediately as gospel.  Political cleansing of formerly broadly liberal institutions is a much much bigger thing on the left.)

I have a FB friend who likes to say "anything a liberal is accusing you of, he is at that very moment doing himself."

Granted, by "liberal" he means "leftist," and that is a mighty broad brush.  But broadly speaking, I find it to be accurate.  Leftism strikes me as, with again rare exception, one gigantic exercise in psychological projection.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Weedon on July 14, 2020, 12:20:44 PM
David just referenced it on the other thread. That was a clarion call to the senile gray lady; but I think her brain is mush these days. She won’t understand it.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: David Garner on July 14, 2020, 12:25:56 PM
David just referenced it on the other thread. That was a clarion call to the senile gray lady; but I think her brain is mush these days. She won’t understand it.

She confirms everything they smugly think of themselves.  To them, she just proved them right.

If you don't believe that, just watch Twitter.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: David Garner on July 14, 2020, 12:27:06 PM
For example, senior correspondent at Vox:

https://twitter.com/imillhiser/status/1283074753113325571?s=20
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: David Garner on July 14, 2020, 12:29:43 PM
Politics writer for Salon:

https://twitter.com/AmandaMarcotte/status/1283074881802960896?s=20
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: David Garner on July 14, 2020, 12:30:45 PM
HuffPost author:

https://twitter.com/zachdcarter/status/1283073069440028678?s=20
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: David Garner on July 14, 2020, 12:32:04 PM
Washington Post editor:

https://twitter.com/hamiltonnolan/status/1283060725196496897?s=20
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: David Garner on July 14, 2020, 12:59:19 PM
On a related note, this Twitter thread is worth your time:

https://twitter.com/yhazony/status/1281256839162847233
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Charles Austin on July 14, 2020, 01:01:24 PM
I guess I have to say I’m shocked at what is in that letter of resignation. And it gives me much to think about.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Mike Gehlhausen on July 14, 2020, 01:04:50 PM
I'd forgotten that this thread was here.

Of course, Bari Weiss has now been cast out into the darkness by the woke, and her credibility regarding what really happened to James Bennet and what is going on at the NYT will be rendered suspect. 

It wasn't about her views.  The line will be that she just didn't get along.  It reminds me a lot of when NPR canned Juan Williams a couple of decades ago. 

I think I understand the NYT's opinion section's game now.  If any sort of fact is argued in an opinion piece that contradicts the woke narrative, then the opinion will be suppressed as failing fact-checking.  For instance, the false narrative that peaceful demonstrators were tear-gassed in Lafayette Park for a photo-op gets a pass, but an editor who fails to "fact-check" a piece by a conservative Senator needs to be fired because it wasn't fact-checked closely enough.

When a paper can establish the facts which support a given narrative on one hand and then hold those providing a "diversity" of opinions to only the facts which support that narrative on the other hand, we have problems.

Seriously, how long do we think executive editor Dean Baquet has before the NYT Jacobins come for him arguing that he engages in too much "both-sidesism"? 

I truly do despair that the New York Times has fallen into this state.  I want a paper or network that challenges me so that I do not fall into confirmation bias.  I'm convinced now that there is one less paper to do so.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Charles Austin on July 14, 2020, 01:10:14 PM
I might ask that we not denounce the entire paper for what appears to be going on in the editorial and opinion and perhaps the magazine section. And I think we need to watch the news section carefully to see whether or not the “narrative“ is given pride of place in the coverage. I will also point out that reporting something which makes somebody look bad does not mean you are out to get that somebody. It might just mean that there are things that actually do make them look bad.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Charles Austin on July 14, 2020, 01:36:43 PM
I do note with some bemusement that in her letter of resignation Ms. Weiss mentioned numerous instances of things that we might call “mobbing,” but she offers no more details about who did what and win than were included in a certain somewhat controversial article in the Lutheran Forum.
And yet, I sense that people here completely believe what she is writing.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: DCharlton on July 14, 2020, 01:44:23 PM
Sounds like what happens to traditional students at ELCA seminaries.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: John_Hannah on July 14, 2020, 01:44:57 PM
I do note with some bemusement that in her letter of resignation Ms. Weiss mentioned numerous instances of things that we might call “mobbing,” but she offers no more details about who did what and win than were included in a certain somewhat controversial article in the Lutheran Forum.
And yet, I sense that people here completely believe what she is writing.

 ;D ;D ;D Just wait. Someone will surely demand names, dates, and serial numbers. . . . Surely they will. . . . It's only right, don't you think?  Maybe Julio or Commencement?

Peace, JOHN
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: DCharlton on July 14, 2020, 01:49:53 PM
Granted, by "liberal" he means "leftist," and that is a mighty broad brush.

That's an important distinction.  We need to reclaim the name liberal from the woke left.  There are conservative liberals and progressive liberals.  There are dogmatic liberals and pragmatic liberals.  But what has taken over the academia, the media, major corporations, and the Democratic Party is not liberalism of any kind. 
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 14, 2020, 01:54:15 PM
I do note with some bemusement that in her letter of resignation Ms. Weiss mentioned numerous instances of things that we might call “mobbing,” but she offers no more details about who did what and win than were included in a certain somewhat controversial article in the Lutheran Forum.
And yet, I sense that people here completely believe what she is writing.
And some people here completely believe the Lutheran Forum article. We could trade aspersions all day on accusatory barbs. Of course John Bolton's tell all book about his time in the White House is to be believed implicitly. He's a white male with a list of accomplishments. Bari Weiss, on the other hand is a Jewish woman, so her accomplishments really count for little and we all know how unreliable Jewish women can be. He was unfairly fired because he stood on principle, she was merely a disgruntled employee out of her depth who didn't do her job properly. Who you gonna believe? We should be thankful that we have retired crack journalist and church statesman here among us to set us straight. Now if we could just get people with uninformed opinions to shut up and listen respectfully this could become a good place for reasonable opinions to be shared.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Mike Gehlhausen on July 14, 2020, 02:09:09 PM
I do note with some bemusement that in her letter of resignation Ms. Weiss mentioned numerous instances of things that we might call “mobbing,” but she offers no more details about who did what and win than were included in a certain somewhat controversial article in the Lutheran Forum.
And yet, I sense that people here completely believe what she is writing.

A few key differences.

1. The New York Times did not publish the resignation letter nor has any other media outlet that I know of so far.  It was posted on Ms. Weiss' web site. Only her credibility is at stake.  The Lutheran Forum's credibility was placed at stake by publishing Pr. Englebrecht's article.

2, Even if the letter may be reposted or published somewhere, it will be to document the letter and not to stand behind it as substantiated.  The Lutheran Forum said they had investigated and substantiated many of the allegations of the Engelbrecht article.

3.  We don't work for the New York Times.  And yet many of the pastors here work for the LCMS and many of we laypeople belong to LCMS congregations.  That places substantiating the truth of the Lutheran Forum article's allegations as more critical to us.  If our leaders and pastors are mobbing others, we want them brought to account.

Nevertheless, yes, it is indeed always better for one's credibility to provide names and dates.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: peter_speckhard on July 14, 2020, 02:29:44 PM
I do note with some bemusement that in her letter of resignation Ms. Weiss mentioned numerous instances of things that we might call “mobbing,” but she offers no more details about who did what and win than were included in a certain somewhat controversial article in the Lutheran Forum.
And yet, I sense that people here completely believe what she is writing.

A few key differences.

1. The New York Times did not publish the resignation letter nor has any other media outlet that I know of so far.  It was posted on Ms. Weiss' web site. Only her credibility is at stake.  The Lutheran Forum's credibility was placed at stake by publishing Pr. Englebrecht's article.

2, Even if the letter may be reposted or published somewhere, it will be to document the letter and not to stand behind it as substantiated.  The Lutheran Forum said they had investigated and substantiated many of the allegations of the Engelbrecht article.

3.  We don't work for the New York Times.  And yet many of the pastors here work for the LCMS and many of we laypeople belong to LCMS congregations.  That places substantiating the truth of the Lutheran Forum article's allegations as more critical to us.  If our leaders and pastors are mobbing others, we want them brought to account.

Nevertheless, yes, it is indeed always better for one's credibility to provide names and dates.
A key distinction is that the resignation is simply one person's statement. If she accused specific people of specific things and were proven wrong, if she made outlandish accusations like people distributing lists of annoying phrases with which to enrage targets, if she accused people of criminal activity, if she refused to provide any documentation whatsoever upon request, then I think people who weren't inclined to believe her story would go on not believing it, and quite rightfully so. That's probably what will happen in this case anyway among those who are disinclined to think of the culture of the progressive left and the media as essentially one and essentially closed-minded and intolerant.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Mark Brown on July 14, 2020, 04:25:29 PM
If the NYT still had an honest Ombudsman (they call it a public editor) proving some of these things would be an interesting work of actual journalism, and a step toward being a real paper.  That Public Editor would just have to make public the internal slack channels. I'm sure he/she could get them. 

What Bari Weiss claims as that harassment is a mixture of things.  The question is what crosses the line?  Ross Douthat addresses that, today by chance!, with 10 theses. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/14/opinion/cancel-culture-.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/14/opinion/cancel-culture-.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage) The big one for him is that it must be something that is intended to cost you your career.

Quote
1. Cancellation, properly understood, refers to an attack on someone’s employment and reputation by a determined collective of critics, based on an opinion or an action that is alleged to be disgraceful and disqualifying.

“Reputation” and “employment” are key terms here. You are not being canceled if you are merely being heckled or insulted — if somebody describes you as a moron or a fascist or some profane alternative to “Douthat” on the internet — no matter how vivid and threatening the heckling becomes. You are decidedly at risk of cancellation, however, if your critics are calling for you to be de-platformed or fired or put out of business, and especially if the call is coming from inside the house — from within your professional community, from co-workers or employees or potential customers or colleagues, on a professional message board or Slack or some interest-specific slice of social media.

So, Bari Weiss' complaints...

"They have called me a Nazi and a racist" - which is just standard issue leftist today.  Everyone is one or the other or both, so might as well say "pietist".

"comments about how I’m 'writing about the Jews again.'" - Anti-semitism is an old left trope. I get that it might be anti-semitic, but it could also just be good natured ribbing given her corpus.  The big difference being when she wrote about Israel it was usually interesting.

"Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers." - Here is where you start crossing into "sticks and stones" territory. Proving this would require a non-anonymous quote from a coworker.  I doubt that is coming, because they probably want to keep their jobs as long as possible, but until then it is fair claim to say it didn't happen. Although given some of the high-fiving by fellows already highlighted above, I would be tempted to believe this.  When they are bragging "we got one".

"My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name." - This is what the Public Editor could get.  Release the internal slack channels with masthead names and ax emojis next to her name.  This fits Ross' definition. And it is real easy to prove/disprove.

"Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action." - This one is provable today by looking a public twitter, and it is true.  But again, liar and bigot are just leftist for "pietist".  It might be tiring, but it still falls under "words can never hurt me".  If you are "in the arena," as Truman said "if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

So yeah, I'd love for Ms. Weiss, or the Public Editor, to release the Slack channels.  If it didn't happen, release enough of them, say everything with the name Bari Weiss mentioned.  If any paper out there wanted the inside baseball coup of the decade, get those before the NYTs releases.  You can put a Sulzberger head on your mantlepiece.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: John_Hannah on July 14, 2020, 05:01:55 PM
I believe Ms. Weiss because I read the Times everyday. I see the bias she faced. (The Times is still excellent for reporting the factual news on time.) I also believe Edward Engelbrecht because I have observed the Missouri Synod's commonplace intimidation all my life. It began with Bishop Stephan and the pledge he required of the young pastors. That was countered by Walther who put him on the boat. Only shortly before my time did "shagging" cease as routine in all our prep schools. It never completely stopped in the Synod at large.   :)

Peace, JOHN
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Dave Likeness on July 14, 2020, 05:55:09 PM
There were attempts at hazing during my time at Concordia High School in Milwaukee.
However, when you had a physical presence in Sexta or Quinta, no upper classman
ever got smart with you. The Jocks took no crap from any Wimps.   Hazing was the
less of my concerns on the postage size campus of Concordia Jr. College, Milwaukee.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Dave Benke on July 14, 2020, 06:12:21 PM
I believe Ms. Weiss because I read the Times everyday. I see the bias she faced. (The Times is still excellent for reporting the factual news on time.) I also believe Edward Engelbrecht because I have observed the Missouri Synod's commonplace intimidation all my life. It began with Bishop Stephan and the pledge he required of the young pastors. That was countered by Walther who put him on the boat. Only shortly before my time did "shagging" cease as routine in all our prep schools. It never completely stopped in the Synod at large.   :)

Peace, JOHN

Shagging and Hazing.  Man, those were the days!

Sextie, make my bed.  Go and buy me a coke, and make it snappy.  Etc., etc. Upper classmen roping the underclassmen into various duties, including taking their Straf-arbeit hours.  That, to me as a Milwaukee guy, was one step over the line.  Straf-arbeit, or just Straf to the frequent flyers, was given for various infractions - not signing out when leaving campus, girl in room (very major problem), drinking, room not clean, and the like.  Usually 5 hours per infraction.  Collected mostly on Saturdays by doing chores for the Hilbert Paap, who was campus-wide custodian and major power-broker.  It could be light duty or if he didn't like you it could be the Tunnels, which were deep beneath the campus and where things lived that shouldn't have, and you'd have to get in there and make a difference.  So you could trade with worse offenders who didn't care, or some power dog could make you take his Straf. 

Of course, it was all in good fun, and really we all came through it as well-adjusted healthy young men believing in the goodness of God and mankind. 

That's the way they made us memorize it.

Tunnels.  Don't go there.

I was part of the Jockocracy, Dave - Falcons Club Forever, Bro!  You may remember Hell Week, which was Hazing on Steroids - but only for a week, and then you got to use the Falcons Lounge.                                                     

Dave Benke
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: John_Hannah on July 14, 2020, 07:02:58 PM
There were attempts at hazing during my time at Concordia High School in Milwaukee.
However, when you had a physical presence in Sexta or Quinta, no upper classman
ever got smart with you. The Jocks took no crap from any Wimps.   Hazing was the
less of my concerns on the postage size campus of Concordia Jr. College, Milwaukee.

That is correct. It was eliminated by decree from above by our time but in 1953 when I started Sexta the upper class men remember it and told us about it (some with fondness and wistfully sorry that they couldn't partake on the higher end.   :)

Peace, JOHN
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: John_Hannah on July 14, 2020, 07:06:38 PM
I believe Ms. Weiss because I read the Times everyday. I see the bias she faced. (The Times is still excellent for reporting the factual news on time.) I also believe Edward Engelbrecht because I have observed the Missouri Synod's commonplace intimidation all my life. It began with Bishop Stephan and the pledge he required of the young pastors. That was countered by Walther who put him on the boat. Only shortly before my time did "shagging" cease as routine in all our prep schools. It never completely stopped in the Synod at large.   :)

Peace, JOHN

Shagging and Hazing.  Man, those were the days!

Sextie, make my bed.  Go and buy me a coke, and make it snappy.  Etc., etc. Upper classmen roping the underclassmen into various duties, including taking their Straf-arbeit hours.  That, to me as a Milwaukee guy, was one step over the line.  Straf-arbeit, or just Straf to the frequent flyers, was given for various infractions - not signing out when leaving campus, girl in room (very major problem), drinking, room not clean, and the like.  Usually 5 hours per infraction.  Collected mostly on Saturdays by doing chores for the Hilbert Paap, who was campus-wide custodian and major power-broker.  It could be light duty or if he didn't like you it could be the Tunnels, which were deep beneath the campus and where things lived that shouldn't have, and you'd have to get in there and make a difference.  So you could trade with worse offenders who didn't care, or some power dog could make you take his Straf. 

Of course, it was all in good fun, and really we all came through it as well-adjusted healthy young men believing in the goodness of God and mankind. 

That's the way they made us memorize it.

Tunnels.  Don't go there.

I was part of the Jockocracy, Dave - Falcons Club Forever, Bro!  You may remember Hell Week, which was Hazing on Steroids - but only for a week, and then you got to use the Falcons Lounge.                                                     

Dave Benke

I see that the ban on hazing/shagging was not synod-wide.   :(   The impulse to intimidation and mobbing is still in our blood or DNA.   :(

Peace, JOHN
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Dave Benke on July 14, 2020, 07:31:16 PM
I believe Ms. Weiss because I read the Times everyday. I see the bias she faced. (The Times is still excellent for reporting the factual news on time.) I also believe Edward Engelbrecht because I have observed the Missouri Synod's commonplace intimidation all my life. It began with Bishop Stephan and the pledge he required of the young pastors. That was countered by Walther who put him on the boat. Only shortly before my time did "shagging" cease as routine in all our prep schools. It never completely stopped in the Synod at large.   :)

Peace, JOHN

Shagging and Hazing.  Man, those were the days!

Sextie, make my bed.  Go and buy me a coke, and make it snappy.  Etc., etc. Upper classmen roping the underclassmen into various duties, including taking their Straf-arbeit hours.  That, to me as a Milwaukee guy, was one step over the line.  Straf-arbeit, or just Straf to the frequent flyers, was given for various infractions - not signing out when leaving campus, girl in room (very major problem), drinking, room not clean, and the like.  Usually 5 hours per infraction.  Collected mostly on Saturdays by doing chores for the Hilbert Paap, who was campus-wide custodian and major power-broker.  It could be light duty or if he didn't like you it could be the Tunnels, which were deep beneath the campus and where things lived that shouldn't have, and you'd have to get in there and make a difference.  So you could trade with worse offenders who didn't care, or some power dog could make you take his Straf. 

Of course, it was all in good fun, and really we all came through it as well-adjusted healthy young men believing in the goodness of God and mankind. 

That's the way they made us memorize it.

Tunnels.  Don't go there.

I was part of the Jockocracy, Dave - Falcons Club Forever, Bro!  You may remember Hell Week, which was Hazing on Steroids - but only for a week, and then you got to use the Falcons Lounge.                                                     

Dave Benke

I see that the ban on hazing/shagging was not synod-wide.   :(   The impulse to intimidation and mobbing is still in our blood or DNA.   :(

Peace, JOHN

Wild Bill Ackmann was the Dean of Students at Concordia, Milwaukee.  We got to swim in Ackmann's pool.  We played in Ackmann's gym.  The Softball Field and Intramural Field was called Ackmann's Rock Pile.  And if (when) you got in trouble, you'd go into Ackmann's office, and he'd go (cleaning up the language a little bit for these very staid conversations) "See huh?  Right huh?"  And then he'd fix his eyes to your right, on a wall.  And he'd say, "See huh?  Right huh?  If you men don't cut the (crap) I'm going to kick your butts right through that wall!  See huh?"  "Yes, sir," was the only response.

Because it was our clear understanding that Bill Ackmann had taught martial arts for years to incoming cadets at the Milwaukee Police Department.  He could, therefore, literally deposit our butts on the far side of that wall.

And I'm happy to say that my picture is hanging in the William C. Ackmann Memorial Hall of Fame.  It could have been a picture of my butt against that wall.

What I'm saying is that we learned hazing at the professional level.

Dave Benke

PS Dave Likeness, do you still have your Spitz Paddles?  I have the ceremonial one, made for me by my Scrub, Bill Liekweg, who has passed away.  Remember, once you were in, you were a Master and the incoming group were Scrubs.  Unfortunately for me, when I came in, my Master hung out with an overlord crew one of whom bore the surname Bader.  'Nuff said.

It was all in good fun.  We came through it as well-adjusted healthy young men believing in the goodness of God and humankind.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 14, 2020, 08:44:57 PM
By the time I went through the Concordia System beginning in 1970, I did not experience or see much in the way of hazing. As a freshman at Ann Arbor we freshmen wore bennies for a week during orientation and the beginning of classes. Oh, yes, and I was "dragged" from my room and tossed in the shower. (I was warned ahead of time and it was suggested that I play along, I did.) That was the extent of the hazing. Of course, this was college, not high school, and a younger school that perhaps did not have a long history of hazing to live down.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Charles Austin on July 14, 2020, 08:46:27 PM
What is a “Bennie”?
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Dave Benke on July 14, 2020, 09:03:20 PM
Beanie

Dave Benke
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 14, 2020, 09:18:50 PM
Sorry, my spell check didn't catch that.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: The Yak on July 15, 2020, 10:04:16 AM
(The Times is still excellent for reporting the factual news on time.)

As long as you read to the 14th paragraph.  That is where the factual news the contradicts the narrative being spun in the previous 13 is usually included.  But to be fair, it's largely there.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: David Garner on July 15, 2020, 10:15:56 AM
(The Times is still excellent for reporting the factual news on time.)

As long as you read to the 14th paragraph.  That is where the factual news the contradicts the narrative being spun in the previous 13 is usually included.  But to be fair, it's largely there.


In the world of social media and paywalls, few people read past the headline.  And if you don't read past the headline, quite often the factual news is not only absent, but in fact contradicts said headline.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: James_Gale on July 15, 2020, 11:15:36 AM
In the last couple days, the NYT published a story about a 30-year-old Texan who died of COVID-19 after attending a COVID party.  The man reportedly believed the disease to be a hoax and expressed his regret on his deathbed.  It's looking more and more as if that story is either false or based on an account to an audience (not a reporter) embellished by a doctor making a point. 


The Times has not pulled its story, but has made a series of changes to make clear that it has not been able to confirm anything in the story.  The hospital has refused to comment, citing privacy rules.  And the doctor has been mostly silent.


Here's a blog post from the National Review (which, as we know, is not ideologically aligned with the NYT) about the story.  Link (https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/did-the-times-print-an-urban-legend/?amp)


Even if it turns out that this story is entirely true, the NYT indisputably ran it without first checking any key underlying facts.  The narrative came first.  Worrying about the facts was secondary.


Each and every day, the NYT is looking more and more like the left-leaning equivalent of Fox News.  You can find plenty of facts there.  But you have to dig through narrative to find them.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: David Garner on July 15, 2020, 01:19:48 PM
In the last couple days, the NYT published a story about a 30-year-old Texan who died of COVID-19 after attending a COVID party.  The man reportedly believed the disease to be a hoax and expressed his regret on his deathbed.  It's looking more and more as if that story is either false or based on an account to an audience (not a reporter) embellished by a doctor making a point. 


The Times has not pulled its story, but has made a series of changes to make clear that it has not been able to confirm anything in the story.  The hospital has refused to comment, citing privacy rules.  And the doctor has been mostly silent.


Here's a blog post from the National Review (which, as we know, is not ideologically aligned with the NYT) about the story.  Link (https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/did-the-times-print-an-urban-legend/?amp)


Even if it turns out that this story is entirely true, the NYT indisputably ran it without first checking any key underlying facts.  The narrative came first.  Worrying about the facts was secondary.


Each and every day, the NYT is looking more and more like the left-leaning equivalent of Fox News.  You can find plenty of facts there.  But you have to dig through narrative to find them.

This internet practice of shadow editing is bad journalism.  We do it all the time on this forum, and depending on how swiftly, the forum informs us a post has been modified.  It's less of a problem here because most people aren't changing the story, they're correcting spelling errors or formatting issues or maybe removing something they thought better of saying.

But for a newspaper to do this is dishonest.  They should expressly note that the story has changed, and how, and why.  They no longer do this.  One must naturally wonder, why not?
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: David Garner on July 15, 2020, 01:20:40 PM
This is the part I have in mind:

"In fact, the story seems to have changed several times since publication, in order to salvage the Times’s own credibility. The story has been transformed, edit by edit, from one of a man who died by taking a foolish risk in which the doctor was the only source, to a story about the questionable claim a doctor is making. There are no editor’s notes on it documenting the changes in the published story and the huge tonal shift from credulousness to skepticism."
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: The Yak on July 15, 2020, 01:31:06 PM
This is the part I have in mind:

"In fact, the story seems to have changed several times since publication, in order to salvage the Times’s own credibility. The story has been transformed, edit by edit, from one of a man who died by taking a foolish risk in which the doctor was the only source, to a story about the questionable claim a doctor is making. There are no editor’s notes on it documenting the changes in the published story and the huge tonal shift from credulousness to skepticism."

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

- George Orwell, 1984
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 15, 2020, 01:47:47 PM
What is thankfully lacking is the affirmation that although the news story may lack factual truth, it conveys an even more important moral truth and so should still be accepted as the news.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Charles Austin on July 15, 2020, 02:00:36 PM
Well, as suggested just upstream concerning the mentality of our fellow citizens, we did not need this particular story to teach us that Some of the citizens of this country are really stupid.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 15, 2020, 02:08:51 PM
This is the part I have in mind:

"In fact, the story seems to have changed several times since publication, in order to salvage the Times’s own credibility. The story has been transformed, edit by edit, from one of a man who died by taking a foolish risk in which the doctor was the only source, to a story about the questionable claim a doctor is making. There are no editor’s notes on it documenting the changes in the published story and the huge tonal shift from credulousness to skepticism."


As I saw the report on TV news, the doctor was reporting what the patient had told a nurse. The "reporting" was third-hand.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Dave Benke on July 15, 2020, 02:10:05 PM
So we have four papers out this way, five if you go to Long Island -
Times
Wall Street Journal
Daily News
Post
Newsday

I had always treated the WSJ as a conservative bastion for people who make a lot of money.  Some on this forum have called it a liberal paper.  Then it devolves into a question of the definition of liberal any more.
The Daily News and Newsday are sort of middle-groundish; Daily News used to be our outer-borough go-to because they actually wrote about the outer borough news.  Not as much any more
The Post is well on the conservative side of the aisle, really unhappy all the time with DiBlasio and Carranza (Commissioner of Schools).  And yet great sports pages, when there used to be sports.  (Wait til the weekend - back to back exhibition games between the Mets and Yankees on TV)

As for the NYT, it is not a fan of Donald Trump.  I think you can put the Times down as a definite No on Trump.  Although they have some good sports people, I like sports in the Post better. 

My ratings are based mostly on the strength of the sports pages.  The rest of it is always up in the air.  But sports - wins, losses and statistics - is measurable truth.

There was a long TV piece yesterday on a Packer Bar in the City which is being saved through Go Fund Me mostly because a certain Aaron Rodgers said it should be saved.  They brought up the fact that the owner, long gone from Wisconsin, still "speaks with an accent."  I was thinking - you couldn't get away with that if the person were from another country, but the Wisconsin accent can be attacked per se as an Auslander.  Of course the guy revels in the accent, all the flat vowels up in the sinuses where they belong.

Dave Benke
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: James_Gale on July 15, 2020, 02:10:55 PM
This is the part I have in mind:

"In fact, the story seems to have changed several times since publication, in order to salvage the Times’s own credibility. The story has been transformed, edit by edit, from one of a man who died by taking a foolish risk in which the doctor was the only source, to a story about the questionable claim a doctor is making. There are no editor’s notes on it documenting the changes in the published story and the huge tonal shift from credulousness to skepticism."

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

- George Orwell, 1984


And also: “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 15, 2020, 02:24:52 PM
Well, as suggested just upstream concerning the mentality of our fellow citizens, we did not need this particular story to teach us that Some of the citizens of this country are really stupid.

But stupidity at the Grey Lady?
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: David Garner on July 15, 2020, 03:27:47 PM
As I saw the report on TV news, the doctor was reporting what the patient had told a nurse. The "reporting" was third-hand.

That's tangential to my point.  They are essentially putting out 2 different stories, but pretending it's the same story, and that it has been the same all along.  That is, they are editing without noting they are editing.  And since most people see the first draft of a story and don't go back for updates, that is a real problem in a 24 hour news world.

Editing is fine.  Editing for clarity is encouraged.  But it should be acknowledged and noted instead of done in such a way as to leave the reader to believe one consistent story has been told all along.  It hasn't.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: DeHall1 on July 15, 2020, 03:36:37 PM

“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

- George Orwell, 1984


And also: “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”

Now testify
It's right outside your door...
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Mike Gehlhausen on July 15, 2020, 03:38:29 PM
That's tangential to my point.  They are essentially putting out 2 different stories, but pretending it's the same story, and that it has been the same all along.  That is, they are editing without noting they are editing.  And since most people see the first draft of a story and don't go back for updates, that is a real problem in a 24 hour news world.

Editing is fine.  Editing for clarity is encouraged.  But it should be acknowledged and noted instead of done in such a way as to leave the reader to believe one consistent story has been told all along.  It hasn't.

I'll give them more latitude than that even.  Just as with modifications here, I don't think that changes in spelling or grammar need to be acknowledged.

But the New York Times seems to be striking new ground here.  Usually when additional information is added to a story or an error has been made, they have acknowledged it in the past.  They are not doing so here.  That is indeed disturbing especially since the approach of the story has changed so much.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: David Garner on July 15, 2020, 03:50:02 PM
That's tangential to my point.  They are essentially putting out 2 different stories, but pretending it's the same story, and that it has been the same all along.  That is, they are editing without noting they are editing.  And since most people see the first draft of a story and don't go back for updates, that is a real problem in a 24 hour news world.

Editing is fine.  Editing for clarity is encouraged.  But it should be acknowledged and noted instead of done in such a way as to leave the reader to believe one consistent story has been told all along.  It hasn't.

I'll give them more latitude than that even.  Just as with modifications here, I don't think that changes in spelling or grammar need to be acknowledged.

But the New York Times seems to be striking new ground here.  Usually when additional information is added to a story or an error has been made, they have acknowledged it in the past.  They are not doing so here.  That is indeed disturbing especially since the approach of the story has changed so much.

That past is, by my observation and recollection, more distant than you seem to consider.  The NY Times has been doing this for at least several years now.  Numerous other publications do as well.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Charles Austin on July 15, 2020, 04:02:21 PM
Pastor Fienen:
But stupidity at the Grey Lady?

I comment:
Some of the smartest people I have ever met worked at The New York Times when I was there toiling away in the news room.
Some of the network news people I encountered during my years dealing with the New York and national  media were among the smartest people I have ever met.
But here’s a simple fact of life, Pastor Fienen. Smart people are not always smart about everything. I knew editors who could absolutely dazzle you with their knowledge about government, its people and its workings. Or about history or science. But some of those people, whom I respected greatly, would not really understand the difference between an Episcopalian and a Presbyterian without having it explained to them.

Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: James_Gale on July 15, 2020, 04:19:49 PM
As I saw the report on TV news, the doctor was reporting what the patient had told a nurse. The "reporting" was third-hand.

That's tangential to my point.  They are essentially putting out 2 different stories, but pretending it's the same story, and that it has been the same all along.  That is, they are editing without noting they are editing.  And since most people see the first draft of a story and don't go back for updates, that is a real problem in a 24 hour news world.

Editing is fine.  Editing for clarity is encouraged.  But it should be acknowledged and noted instead of done in such a way as to leave the reader to believe one consistent story has been told all along.  It hasn't.


Yep.  I'm absolutely certain that many people around the country read the original story, probably in the paper's print edition, and are sharing it with their friends and neighbors.  The benighted Texan whose ignorance led to his death fits neatly as an archetypical character in The Narrative and will be accepted as such.


The Washington Post has lost its way as well.  Until about the time that Bezos/Amazon bought it, I'd regarded the Post as a solid newspaper with a liberal but fair oped staff.  Sadly, the Post nowadays seems more interested on pushing The Narrative while sweeping anything that doesn't fit into a dark corner in one of those Sunday-only sections.  Of course, this all adds to the inherent creepiness of the Post's Amazon-era slogan, "Democracy Dies In Darkness."  Some poor souls may infer from that slogan a desire to shine a light on all relevant facts to prevent democracy's death.  They don't realize that the slogan instead is the mission statement for today's Post editors.


This is not a phenomenon monopolized by the Left, of course.  Fox News plays the same game.  But for whatever reason, most media outlets tilt decidedly to the left. 
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Charles Austin on July 15, 2020, 04:25:37 PM
I may over state My interpretations, Dave, but when I used to ride the subways to work I noticed that if you were on the subway before seven in the morning, people were reading El Diario. After seven, they were reading the Post or the Daily News. After 8 AM, the New York Times.
No one on the subways read the Wall Street Journal, although I hear it was a big read on the Long Island Railroad and on the Metro North coming down from Westchester County.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Michael Slusser on July 15, 2020, 09:10:16 PM
I may over state My interpretations, Dave, but when I used to ride the subways to work I noticed that if you were on the subway before seven in the morning, people were reading El Diario. After seven, they were reading the Post or the Daily News. After 8 AM, the New York Times.
No one on the subways read the Wall Street Journal, although I hear it was a big read on the Long Island Railroad and on the Metro North coming down from Westchester County.
Anecdotal, but it makes sense to me!

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Steven W Bohler on July 15, 2020, 11:21:29 PM
I may over state My interpretations, Dave, but when I used to ride the subways to work I noticed that if you were on the subway before seven in the morning, people were reading El Diario. After seven, they were reading the Post or the Daily News. After 8 AM, the New York Times.
No one on the subways read the Wall Street Journal, although I hear it was a big read on the Long Island Railroad and on the Metro North coming down from Westchester County.

From "Yes, Prime Minister": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M.  Beware, there IS a naughty word at the end.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Matt Hummel on July 16, 2020, 12:10:09 PM
Here's another reason why the Gray Lady should, to use my daughter's quaint expression, go dig a hole and die in it: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/undeserved-derision-from-the-new-york-times/

During the early part of the Corona outbreak in DE, the Little Sisters of the Poor were heroic in their treatment of the residents of their care facilities.

Obama just wanted to beat the political crap out of the Catholic Church in his push for socialized medicine. Typical tough cop behavior. Find the biggest jabrony on the corner. Beat him down just to show you can, and let the weaker know who's the boss. And Biden, Pelosi, and others were complicit.

And Biden brags that he will continue in his former boss'  bullying tactics. Well thanks for the warning Joe.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Dave Benke on July 16, 2020, 12:45:35 PM
Here's another reason why the Gray Lady should, to use my daughter's quaint expression, go dig a hole and die in it: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/undeserved-derision-from-the-new-york-times/

During the early part of the Corona outbreak in DE, the Little Sisters of the Poor were heroic in their treatment of the residents of their care facilities.

Obama just wanted to beat the political crap out of the Catholic Church in his push for socialized medicine. Typical tough cop behavior. Find the biggest jabrony on the corner. Beat him down just to show you can, and let the weaker know who's the boss. And Biden, Pelosi, and others were complicit.

And Biden brags that he will continue in his former boss'  bullying tactics. Well thanks for the warning Joe.

Nobody should mess with women religious, most particularly the Little Sisters of the Poor and anyone connected to St. Cabrini, the saint patroness of immigrants.  Without question she would not have been a fan of the Trump immigration malarkey, having devoted her life in these United States and across the world to assisting immigrants. 

Which makes your point.  This smackdown of the Little Sisters of the Poor is done for ideological reasons not even connected to Trump, but to eliminate the option now declared to be Okeydokey by the Supreme Court.  Good for them.

Back in the day in Brooklyn, when on ecumenical retreat, the ecumenical clergy, of all races/backgrounds including me, would opine that it was impossible to minister in certain NYCHA housing projects - just way, way too dangerous.  Let them come out of the projects, and then we can meet them.   

 Upon which commentary the women religious said, "Are you talking about X Project?  We go in there every day to bring food and prayers.  It's just hard climbing the stairs because the elevators don't work, but we can't let that get in the way, so we get some of the kids to help us carry the food." 

Oh - you mean actually doing the work of the Gospel.  We the clergy were looking at our shoes for the rest of that retreat.  Humbled.

One of the sisters at the Catholic church down the block had the parish car stolen.  Within a week or so, the police found it, gave it back to her, received her grateful thanks since she used it to visit the sick and poor.  Then she opened the trunk.  Dead guy in trunk.  She got another car.  Kept on doing the work of the Gospel.

Dave Benke
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Matt Hummel on July 16, 2020, 12:57:48 PM
As a son of the NY area, I read:

"One of the sisters at the Catholic church down the block had the parish car stolen.  Within a week or so, the police found it, gave it back to her, received her grateful thanks since she used it to visit the sick and poor.  Then she opened the trunk.  Dead guy in trunk.  She got another car.  Kept on doing the work of the Gospel."

And had to wonder, was it the perp who stole the car? Because I can see certain elements of the criminal community wanting to say "sorry,"  and make a point that Sister's wheels are off limits. Would that the Democrats and their media mouthpieces had the decency of common street thugs.
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Dave Benke on July 16, 2020, 01:21:31 PM
As a son of the NY area, I read:

"One of the sisters at the Catholic church down the block had the parish car stolen.  Within a week or so, the police found it, gave it back to her, received her grateful thanks since she used it to visit the sick and poor.  Then she opened the trunk.  Dead guy in trunk.  She got another car.  Kept on doing the work of the Gospel."

And had to wonder, was it the perp who stole the car? Because I can see certain elements of the criminal community wanting to say "sorry,"  and make a point that Sister's wheels are off limits. Would that the Democrats and their media mouthpieces had the decency of common street thugs.

That's one of two possibilities, and a good answer! 
The other is that whoever took the wheels didn't know it was the Parish car, or they never would have taken it in the first place.   

To complete the thought, if you remember that part of southern East New York, there's a street called Fountain Avenue, which was used by night as a major league drag strip - car racing for bucks - which ended in the landfill at Jamaica Bay.  The landfill area was where they dumped the bodies.  "They" meaning the group who ruled one community over in Ozone Park/Howard Beach.   And that group would have been completely mortified to have stolen a nun's car.  Which leads to your conclusion that the thief could have received a death sentence upon examination of the personalized rosary beads attached to the rear view mirror of the stolen wheels.  How many centuries of purgatory would the theft of a nun's car rack up?

Dave Benke
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Matt Hummel on July 16, 2020, 01:43:13 PM
As a son of the NY area, I read:

"One of the sisters at the Catholic church down the block had the parish car stolen.  Within a week or so, the police found it, gave it back to her, received her grateful thanks since she used it to visit the sick and poor.  Then she opened the trunk.  Dead guy in trunk.  She got another car.  Kept on doing the work of the Gospel."

And had to wonder, was it the perp who stole the car? Because I can see certain elements of the criminal community wanting to say "sorry,"  and make a point that Sister's wheels are off limits. Would that the Democrats and their media mouthpieces had the decency of common street thugs.

That's one of two possibilities, and a good answer! 
The other is that whoever took the wheels didn't know it was the Parish car, or they never would have taken it in the first place.   

To complete the thought, if you remember that part of southern East New York, there's a street called Fountain Avenue, which was used by night as a major league drag strip - car racing for bucks - which ended in the landfill at Jamaica Bay.  The landfill area was where they dumped the bodies.  "They" meaning the group who ruled one community over in Ozone Park/Howard Beach.   And that group would have been completely mortified to have stolen a nun's car.  Which leads to your conclusion that the thief could have received a death sentence upon examination of the personalized rosary beads attached to the rear view mirror of the stolen wheels.  How many centuries of purgatory would the theft of a nun's car rack up?

Dave Benke

Fuhgeddaboutit. Youse would be sweating to the oldies long after Luther had completed his laps...  ;)
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Jeremy Loesch on July 16, 2020, 01:53:18 PM
As a son of the NY area, I read:

"One of the sisters at the Catholic church down the block had the parish car stolen.  Within a week or so, the police found it, gave it back to her, received her grateful thanks since she used it to visit the sick and poor.  Then she opened the trunk.  Dead guy in trunk.  She got another car.  Kept on doing the work of the Gospel."

And had to wonder, was it the perp who stole the car? Because I can see certain elements of the criminal community wanting to say "sorry,"  and make a point that Sister's wheels are off limits. Would that the Democrats and their media mouthpieces had the decency of common street thugs.

That's one of two possibilities, and a good answer! 
The other is that whoever took the wheels didn't know it was the Parish car, or they never would have taken it in the first place.   

To complete the thought, if you remember that part of southern East New York, there's a street called Fountain Avenue, which was used by night as a major league drag strip - car racing for bucks - which ended in the landfill at Jamaica Bay.  The landfill area was where they dumped the bodies.  "They" meaning the group who ruled one community over in Ozone Park/Howard Beach.   And that group would have been completely mortified to have stolen a nun's car.  Which leads to your conclusion that the thief could have received a death sentence upon examination of the personalized rosary beads attached to the rear view mirror of the stolen wheels.  How many centuries of purgatory would the theft of a nun's car rack up?

Dave Benke

A favorite story of mine from DE involved my car- a red, 4 door Ford Focus.  Nothing fancy, but it had nice tires/wheels, and an awesome stereo.  (We inherited it from my wife's grandfather, who liked music.)  There was a young woman named Rita who had a hard life.  Some of the hardship was her doing, some of it was not.  She was married to an African American.  Her parents didn't like that.  Cut off ties.  Children entered the picture.  But there was drugs, poverty, job after job after job, no reliable transportation, unsteady housing situations.  She'd go silent for months, then out of the blue call me with a need.  It usually involved diapers and food for the kids, which is an easy lure for me to bite at.  For a while she lived in a bad part of Wilmington.  (Redundant, I know)  I had a box of diapers, some pedialyte, some other food items.  I park my car on the street, get the boxes out of the trunk and a guy notices the box of diapers from Target.  "You taking that shit to Rita, Father?"  "Uh...yeah."  "That's nice of you.  Her kids need some help."  "I know.  I'm glad that I can give them a little something."  "I'll watch your car for you Father.  No charge."  Then he proceeds to walk over and sit on the hood of my car.  His gun is clearly visible in the waistband of his pants.  I was in Rita's place maybe 15 minutes.  When I come back, the guy gets off my car, takes the towel from around his neck and wipes off the spot where he was sitting.  "You know no one messed with your car Father."  "I was never worried my friend."  I shook his hand and left.

Now when I go some place in KC and a church member talks about it being a bad spot of town, I wonder what their definition of bad is.  And I wonder who takes care of Rita and her kids these days? 

Jeremy
Title: Re: The End of the NYT
Post by: Matt Hummel on July 16, 2020, 01:56:20 PM
Actually, all joking aside, this is my take:

They (The Little Sisters of the Poor) scare people. And what people fear they hate. They fear the lived example of a life given over totally to the Father through Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit.

People like Gail Collins fear the lives lived without pursuit of the material, or power, or the scratching of the latest libidinous itch.

Holiness is palpable. Holiness is powerful, and to people like Collins, holiness is therefore terrifying.

Then there are those like me who pray for the smallest measure of what these women have, that we might begin to follow Christ as  they have.