The End of the NYT

[Voelker]

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.

[Charles Austin]

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.

[Voelker]

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. Toodles.

[Mark Brown]

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.

[The Yak]

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.

[peter_speckhard]

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.

[peter_speckhard]

http://www.judithmiller.com/24236/new-york-times-cotton-oped?fbclid=IwAR1TfKHriXDMSfZQgvSE1Hq7EpadWYcEhAE3fYc0Q-qHGaPduyR0rUGTlEA

[Charles Austin]

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.

[jebutler]

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?

[James J Eivan]

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.

[Eileen Smith]

I'll admit that I'm willing to pay if only for David Brooks.  I always look forward to his columns.

[peter_speckhard]

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.   

[Dave Benke]

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

[David Garner]

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.

[Steven Tibbetts]

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?