The Real problem with cancel culture

[The Brain]

Sounds like an internal NY Times matter. I'm not terribly interested in the office politics of dysfunctional workplaces.

[Eddie Teach]

Just a nitpick and not a dismissal of her letter, but does it really matter what an artist thinks about politics? There wasn't any mention of lizardmen in The Color Purple and nothing wrong with admiring its author.

[The Brain]

Spoilers FFS.

[DGuller]

Sounds like an internal NY Times matter. I'm not terribly interested in the office politics of dysfunctional workplaces.

I didn't read all of it, but the snippets I read seem to reflect pretty well on the problem with intellectual discourse among the liberals lately.  I'm sure there is a name for it, but I call it differential skepticism:  uncritical acceptance of what fits your worldview, and skepticism or even unreasonable skepticism of what doesn't.  It's sort of an ideological equivalent of "for my friends everything, for my enemies the law".

[Sheilbh]

Sounds like an internal NY Times matter. I'm not terribly interested in the office politics of dysfunctional workplaces.

The endless stories about the NYT on the NYT by NYT writers, commented on by NYT op-eds is tedious. It reminds me of the sheer extent the BBC covers the BBC. Journalists always wildly overestimate the amount of general interest in media stories

It's all very:


Honestly I think so much of this is due to the insane way opinion and news sections are run in the US, especially the NYT and the bizarre self-regard the NYT has for itself as the "paper of record". I feel like they should just accept the moment there was space for one authoritative voice (that contains within it all that is respectable) is long past and, in many ways, they're increasingly an American version of the Guardian - the voice of a liberal section of their country - and that's fine.

[The Brain]

Sounds like an internal NY Times matter. I'm not terribly interested in the office politics of dysfunctional workplaces.

I didn't read all of it, but the snippets I read seem to reflect pretty well on the problem with intellectual discourse among the liberals lately.  I'm sure there is a name for it, but I call it differential skepticism:  uncritical acceptance of what fits your worldview, and skepticism or even unreasonable skepticism of what doesn't.  It's sort of an ideological equivalent of "for my friends everything, for my enemies the law".

Certainly. Just seems weird to me to expect a specific newspaper to fill the role of the press. If I encounter a crappy restaurant I don't return every day waiting for it to get better, I go to other restaurants. Looking for choice and diversity within a specific single organization is asking for disappointment.

[The Brain]

Sounds like an internal NY Times matter. I'm not terribly interested in the office politics of dysfunctional workplaces.

The endless stories about the NYT on the NYT by NYT writers, commented on by NYT op-eds is tedious. It reminds me of the sheer extent the BBC covers the BBC. Journalists always wildly overestimate the amount of general interest in media stories

Yeah, I've lost count of the number of times I've read some journalist airing internal grievances and saying "Why the hell are you telling me this? Talk to your bosses or with HR."

[Barrister]

Bari Weiss has a higher profile than your average NYT opinion writer though.  She's been an ardent defender of Israel and critique of anti-semitism (in particular on campuses).  She was one of the signatories to "the letter" that attracted more than her share of criticism.

There's one line in her article:

"There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge."

Constructive discharge bring to mind a wrongful termination lawsuit.  Curious to see if that's where she goes.

That being said I won't worry for Bari Weiss.  She should be able to get a job at any number of centre-right publications is she chose to go that route (she identifies herself as centre-left).  But with her 176,000 Twitter followers I'm sure she could also go the Patreon route and self-finance her writing that way.

[Syt]

The endless stories about the NYT on the NYT by NYT writers, commented on by NYT op-eds is tedious. It reminds me of the sheer extent the BBC covers the BBC. Journalists always wildly overestimate the amount of general interest in media stories

It's kind of like the shenanigans at the Muppet Show. Or the high stakes for-TV drama between management and wrestlers in the WWE.

[Oexmelin]

Or the high stakes for-TV drama between management and wrestlers in the WWE.

I like this analogy and may steal it.

[viper37]

And in the process, you lose your reputation, your friends, your carreer, your sources of income.
I'd prefer to be dead.

Then don't complain about left-wing activists using violence.

They're French speaking, so they were obviously racists, and I guess that justify this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwmnhIH6fS0
And another bunch of peace minded folks:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e45rBsiASao
The guy speaking describe how he was attacked by 3 antifas who asked him to identify himself and try to steal his wallet, most likely because they wanted to know where he lived so they could keep on harrassing him.

What's the difference between this and the police beating journalists or attacking people on their porch?  In one case, no one will defend the cops. In the other, everyone rushes to defend the other scumbags.

There are hundreds of videos like this, just for Quebec.

Contrary to many on the left, I do not believe violence, verbal or physical, to be a solution to perceived problems.

[viper37]

Sounds like an internal NY Times matter. I'm not terribly interested in the office politics of dysfunctional workplaces.

But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn't a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.

No, it ain't specific to the NYT.  Remove the part about "understanding other Americans" and we'll see the same in Canada.  Just read Oex's comment the other day about right wing party willingly attracting racists.  Facts do not matter anymore, it's what you perceive as facts that matters.

It's not better thant the alternative facts bullshit of the Trumpists.

[Camerus]

The endless stories about the NYT on the NYT by NYT writers, commented on by NYT op-eds is tedious. It reminds me of the sheer extent the BBC covers the BBC. Journalists always wildly overestimate the amount of general interest in media stories

It's kind of like the shenanigans at the Muppet Show. Or the high stakes for-TV drama between management and wrestlers in the WWE.

Presumably though the New York Times has slightly greater influence over public opinion and elite opinion-making than the WWE.

Given the fact that the New York Times is the most famous and influential newspaper among educated Americans,  if not the world, I find its ongoing internal civil war to be interesting, and of rather high stakes if one is interested in the quality and objectivity of American media.

[The Minsky Moment]

Given the fact that the New York Times is the most famous and influential newspaper among educated Americans,  if not the world, I find its ongoing internal civil war to be interesting, and of rather high stakes if one is interested in the quality and objectivity of American media.

Except that the reality is that it really is just an commentariat spat and not a fight over the soul of American media.  Bari Weiss is not the great victimized crusader of truth, justice and objectivity going down fighting nobly against the dastardly Legions of Woke.  She is an op ed scribbler who sometimes makes good or interesting points and sometimes engages in the same BS as her detractors. I.e. no different from anyone else in the biz

Exhibit 1 is her retweet and comment from 2 days ago:
https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/1281642849340141569

Bari Weiss
@bariweiss
This essay by @benj_kerstein  is brilliant and true.

And what is Mr. Kersteins' brilliant and true essay that earns Weiss' high praises?  It's a slam job on another commentator (Peter Beinart), who happens to be Jewish and recently advocated a one-state solution to the I-P conflict.

Is. Kersteins' brilliant and true essay based on a rigoruously objective analysis of Beinart's argument?  No it doesn't even discuss the substance of the argument.
Rather, he argues:
1) Beinart is a self hating Jew whose rejection of the traditional Zionist viewpoint makes him a racist.
2) Beinart's parents were well to do and he attended good schools, thus invalidating his viewpoint.

I.e. it accuses him of racism for not agreeing with Kerstein's viewpoint and then proceeds to pure ad hom based on his "privilege".  It is like a Switftian parody of what conservatives criticize about "cancel culture", except it isn't.  It is in earnest and totally oblivious of its obvious hyprocrisy

And this is what Bari Weiss urges her followers to read as "brilliant and true" just days after signing the Harper's letter claiming that "The way to defeat bad ideas is by exposure, argument, and persuasion, not by trying to silence or wish them away."

Fact is Weiss has her side and when it suits her she endorses the same tactics she deplores in others

[Sheilbh]

Presumably though the New York Times has slightly greater influence over public opinion and elite opinion-making than the WWE.

Given the fact that the New York Times is the most famous and influential newspaper among educated Americans,  if not the world, I find its ongoing internal civil war to be interesting, and of rather high stakes if one is interested in the quality and objectivity of American media.

I think my point is that a lot of it is because the NYT perceives itself as something that it isn't and that it's impossible to be. We don't have these involved stories about say the Washington Post, LA Times or any other prominent American news organisations because they don't have the level of self-regard that the NYT does.

I think the NYT still sees itself or sees its role as in effect curating the American public sphere - I think that's unique to the NYT and I think it's impossible. The public sphere it's trying to curate does not exist anymore. It's one of the points I always find slightly weird about the criticism of newspapers. There is no obligation on newspapers or TV stations or any other business to offend the sensibilities of their readers/users (and normally conservatives have understood this - see the various controversies over art that offends certain values). I think this would happen less if the NYT was trying to curate a public sphere and opinion section of its readers (and pushing them/challenging them within that sphere) as other American newspapers do but also as, say, the UK broadsheets do as well - Guardian, Telegraph and Times all do this to greater or lesser degree.

That's why I think the best comparison is with the BBC in terms of both the sort-of self-reflective stories. I think it stems from a similar view of their own responsibility as a news organisation and place in the nation, the slight difference is I don't know that the NYT has ever actually occupied the place it thinks it has.