Author Topic: The End of the NYT  (Read 12714 times)

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 13579
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Re: The End of the NYT
« Reply #15 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.
Retired ELCA pastor. Iowa born. Back home from Sioux City after three days and a pleasant reunion of the East High School class of - can you believe it! - 1959.

Voelker

  • Guest
Re: The End of the NYT
« Reply #16 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.

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 13579
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Re: The End of the NYT
« Reply #17 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!
Retired ELCA pastor. Iowa born. Back home from Sioux City after three days and a pleasant reunion of the East High School class of - can you believe it! - 1959.

peter_speckhard

  • ALPB Administrator
  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 17524
    • View Profile
Re: The End of the NYT
« Reply #18 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.

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 13579
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Re: The End of the NYT
« Reply #19 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.

Retired ELCA pastor. Iowa born. Back home from Sioux City after three days and a pleasant reunion of the East High School class of - can you believe it! - 1959.

Mark Brown

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1253
  • Pastor, St. Mark Lutheran, West Henrietta, NY
    • View Profile
    • Saint Mark's Website
Re: The End of the NYT
« Reply #20 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.

Voelker

  • Guest
Re: The End of the NYT
« Reply #21 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.

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 13579
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Re: The End of the NYT
« Reply #22 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.
Retired ELCA pastor. Iowa born. Back home from Sioux City after three days and a pleasant reunion of the East High School class of - can you believe it! - 1959.

The Yak

  • ALPB Forum Member
  • **
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Re: The End of the NYT
« Reply #23 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.
Rev. Dr. Scott Yakimow
Professor of Theology
Concordia University - Ann Arbor

James_Gale

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4082
    • View Profile
Re: The End of the NYT
« Reply #24 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.

Mark Brown

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 1253
  • Pastor, St. Mark Lutheran, West Henrietta, NY
    • View Profile
    • Saint Mark's Website
Re: The End of the NYT
« Reply #25 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.

James_Gale

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4082
    • View Profile
Re: The End of the NYT
« Reply #26 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.

James_Gale

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4082
    • View Profile
Re: The End of the NYT
« Reply #27 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.

Charles Austin

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 13579
    • View Profile
    • Charles is Coloring
Re: The End of the NYT
« Reply #28 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
Retired ELCA pastor. Iowa born. Back home from Sioux City after three days and a pleasant reunion of the East High School class of - can you believe it! - 1959.

James_Gale

  • ALPB Contribution Leader
  • *****
  • Posts: 4082
    • View Profile
Re: The End of the NYT
« Reply #29 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


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.