They knew they were never “endangered” by Cotton’s editorial. Claiming otherwise was always a straight up power play. They’re just crybullies, abusing the compassion of others by holding themselves hostage to get what they want. I’ve also cancelled my NYT subscription, and for the exact same reason. Those fucksticks aren’t getting another penny of my money.
It seems to me that our old fiend ignorance also happens a lot among leftists that end up as concern trolls.
The latest is based into thinking that reporters, even black ones have nothing to fear or that they are just imagining dangers.
It’s a matter of deciding which avenue to take in addressing a serious concern. That doesn’t diminish the concern.
I think what he’s really getting at goes back to my point about amplification. If you repeat the message enough times, it becomes part of the overall truth. When we use mass media, we’re not just creating information, we’re often framing the information and suggesting how people should think about a particular topic.
Nobody’s taking away Tom Cotton’s right to express himself, but the Times has a right to decide whether they’re going to give him their microphone. It’s no different than holding a protest. You can organize a protest, but I can decide whether you can use my house to come over and make signs and phone calls in preparation for that kind of event. You can always go on to someone else’s house. NY Times staff were telling the Times management that they didn’t want to be the ones to give Cotton the microphone. They didn’t want their house to be used for his or Trump’s rally. And it’s just in this one case. They never said Sen Cotton can’t write an op-ed ever.
Be that as it may, they invited him to write it. Published it. Discredited it. Then folded like a cheap rag to public pressure to fall on their sword and fire the editor-in-chief.
Effectively, they failed to live up to their journalistic integrity twice over.
That’s some fine virtue signalling!
watnow?
ETA: On second though, never mind. I don’t give a fuck about what you have to say if you can’t be arsed to make the effort to express yourself in a way that can be understood.
Maybe the real problem, which they more or less admittedly to already, was that they didn’t follow their normal editorial review process. That’s really the underlying problem in all of this: they were grossly negligent in the operation of their press.
Again, nobody would care if this were a less reputable and less influential publication. It would have been par for the course had this appeared in the Washington Times, which is known as a right-leaning publication.
I don’t think that the Times necessarily has a liberal reputation to live up to, either. I don’t insist that the press have a liberal bias, but that brings us to another point: the truth these days seems to have a liberal bias. Should publications like the Times, like the WaPo, like the Atlantic be less factual in order to be less biased, or should other publications simply abandon their own bias in order to be more truthful?
I agree with that and the reality has been that groups like The New York Times are corporate media in the end. Not really liberal as anyone who looked at Noam Chomsky’ Manufacturing Consentcan tell you.
Facts should remain stubborn things. ‘Other People’s Opinions’, if clearly labeled, have more leeway. If certain publications insist on publishing lies as facts, well, I’m not sure what we can do about that except to call them out and encourage others not to support them. It’s a struggle given that The National Enquirer is still in business.
Bari Weiss resigned today.
Here’s her full resignation letter: Resignation Letter — Bari Weiss
What do we think about this?
That her definition of “centrist” is a little off the mark.
Aye; that made me snort when I read it in her resignation letter.
I recall that she was a centrist in her imagination only.
The times already has Bret Stephens and Tom Friedman, both of whom have neo-conish tendencies though Friedman is arguably the more palatable and intellectual of the two. I think Weiss was a lab experiment to see if the Times could lure in some Fox News watchers.
She probably just resigned because no one would go out with her:
Well, good to know you decide what is mainstream speech. And I’m sure you’d be the first to scream censorship if someone tried to silence you. I bow to you.
TGT amirite?
And now we have Newsweek running articles about how Kamala Harris isn’t a citizen. And they have the nerve to defend the article, “Oh, no, it’s not racist.”
And they end the piece with
The debate pertaining to the precise constitutional requirements for the Article II phrase “natural born Citizen,” having been aired in 2000, 2008 and 2016, is unlikely to fall quiet soon.
Yes, it’s unlikely to fall quiet if they keep publishing columns like that.
The author is deliberately stirring bullshit and he knows it, on one hand acknowledging that the Courts have determined that all natural born personas are eligible, yet leaving the door open for controversy by writing that the Courts didn’t reach that conclusion until after Harris was born – as if it fucking matters (it doesn’t).
So desperate is the online version of a dying print publication that it resorts to trolling for clicks.
Newsweek is owned by a cult leader who also runs Christian University Olivet University.