I searched the article for “platform” and came up only with this:
Changes in newsrooms were also related to efforts to increase demographic diversity, on the assumption that this is the only authentic way to give voice to minorities. But the campus zeal for deplatforming voices deemed offensive and defenestrating those found guilty of violating the ethos has also been imported. (James Bennet, who resigned as editorial-page editor of the New York Times after one such row, now works for The Economist; he was not involved in this article.) Non-journalists on the staff of newspapers, including young engineers, can be even more activist in campaigning against colleagues judged to be producing content at odds with the new vision of social justice.
As with universities, this stridency met little rebuke from the heads of newsrooms. Lee Fang, a left-leaning journalist for “The Intercept”, an online publication specialising in “adversarial journalism”, was accused by a colleague of racism for posting an interview with an African-American supporter of Black Lives Matter who offered a personal criticism of the group. He was made to apologise.
I’m pretty sure I read something about the Bennet case at the time, but don’t remember much about it now. I don’t know how accurate that description of the Lee Fang case is. Maybe I’ll look them up, if I decide I’m getting nothing else done tonight anyway (which is possible, I’m in a state of semicollapse after too little sleep before a sizeable chunk of day doing a farmers’ market.) The rest of that is too vague to do much with.
(Did anybody actually get defenestrated on a college campus?)
It’s not as stupid as abolishing the police. Not deporting illegal immigrants would hardly be as disastrous as not arresting criminals, and seems to be what a fair number of people on the left actually want. If the Atlantic article is to be believed there are prominent Democrats who’ve endorsed the idea.
I think they are speaking metaphorically.
IIRC Bennet was the one who resigned after publishing an opinion piece by a Republican senator who wanted to send the military to stop BLM protests (or the riots and looting?)
Lee Fang said in that quote that he asked everyone he spoke with; which implied he spoke with a batch of people. Did he post interviews with the rest of them, or only post the one with Max?
Yup.
The opinion piece (which Bennet apparently hadn’t read before publication) is pretty drastic in itself. But that may not have been the only issue; it might have been more of a last straw.
Mr. Bennet’s tenure as editorial page editor, which started in 2016, was marked by several missteps. Last spring, The Times apologized for an anti-Semitic cartoon that appeared in the Opinion pages of its international edition.
Last August, a federal appellate court found that Sarah Palin, the former vice-presidential candidate, could proceed with a defamation lawsuit against The Times over an editorial edited by Mr. Bennet that inaccurately linked her statements to the 2011 shooting of a congresswoman.
During Mr. Bennet’s first year on the job, two Times national security reporters publicly objected to an Op-Ed by the journalist Louise Mensch, who cited her own reporting on United States law enforcement’s purported monitoring of the Trump presidential campaign. Times reporters who had covered the same story, along with reporters at other outlets, were skeptical of her claim.
I get the impression a fair number of people do not want certain types of criminal arrested - eg people with recreational quantities of drugs, people who shoplift basic necessities, people who default on speeding fines, etc.
That stance makes sense and is one I can be on board with. I don’t think anyone normal is seriously suggesting the police don’t arrest violent criminals or bank robbers or kidnappers etc.
Your snip changed my meaning. A fair number of people on the left don’t want illegal immigrants already living in the US to be deported, maybe with an exception for those who have committed non-immigration related crimes.
ICE should be abolished (or reformed such that it’s effectively been abolished) not because its ostensible mission is wrong, but because it’s essentially become a Trumpian white supremacist paramilitary organization that targets and abuses migrants with no accountability or governability.
I was not trying to compare the consequences of abolishing one to the other. I was merely commenting on the (un)likelihood that either one would be abolished period.
I don’t think my snip changed your meaning. Full paragraph:
“Not as stupid as abolishing the police” “hardly be as disastrous as not arresting criminals”. Those phrases do not equal “don’t want illegal immigrants already living in the US to be deported”.
[Moderating] Sunny, the edit you made to DemonTree’s post substantially changes its meaning, which is a violation of the board rules. Please be more careful in how you portray other people’s posts, so you aren’t changing the meaning as you did here.
(I’m trying to sort out, in case it isn’t clear, whether he was trying to present an evenhanded picture, or was selecting interviews that cast a bad light on BLM.)
What bullshit. I’m also not American and primarily read the BBC (and the Guardian) and I don’t have your stupidly warped impression of what getting rid of ICE would mean.
