- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The revolution is devouring its own, and the New York Times is self-destructing. Very sad.
NYT Is Returning to America's Roots. As in Salem
Andrew Sullivan, The Spectator
It’s never a good sign when you’re watching a scene of street terror in yet another gut-churning YouTube video and you find yourself thinking: ‘Hang on a minute, that’s around the corner from my apartment!’ But there’s a now infamous video from last week where a mob of enraged millennials with their fists pumped in the air surrounded a lone young woman sitting outside a Washington restaurant where I often eat. Like a scene from the Cultural Revolution, the crowd demanded she shout certain slogans and raise her clenched fist in solidarity — or be damned as a racist. Most of her fellow diners took the path of least resistance. She wouldn’t. The chants grew louder: ‘White silence is violence!’ They started screaming in her face. She wouldn’t cave. Wokeness, in case you hadn’t noticed, has entered a more intense phase. Not so long ago, you were canceled for something you did or said or wrote. Now you’re canceled just for saying absolutely nothing at all.
I had a much milder experience of this during the past week when the New York Times decided to run a profile of me. The hook was that I was forced to leave New York magazine last month because, according to the NYT, I had not publicly recanted editing an issue of the New Republic published…in 1994. The issue was a symposium on The Bell Curve, a book by Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein that explored the connection between IQ, class, social mobility and race. My crime was to arrange a symposium around an extract, with 13 often stinging critiques published alongside it. The fact I had not recanted that decision did not, mind you, prevent TIME, the Atlantic, Newsweek, the NYT and New York magazine from publishing me in the following years. But suddenly, a decision I made a quarter of a century ago required my being canceled. The NYT reporter generously gave me a chance to apologize and recant, and when I replied that I thought the role of genetics in intelligence among different human populations was still an open question, he had his headline: ‘I won’t stop reading Andrew Sullivan, but I can’t defend him.’ In other words, the media reporter in America’s paper of record said he could not defend a writer because I refused to say something I don’t believe. He said this while arguing that I was ‘one of the most influential journalists of the last three decades’. To be fair to him, he would have had no future at the NYT if he had not called me an indefensible racist. His silence on that would have been as unacceptable to his woke bosses as my refusal to recant. But this is where we now are. A reporter is in fear of being canceled if he doesn’t cancel someone else. This is America returning to its roots. As in Salem. . . .
People have been saying the NY Times is finished for over a century.
The Gray Lady became a two-bit hooker during the lead-up to the 2004 election, as far as I'm concerned, and that's when I dropped my subscription. At the time I was shocked by its shameless dishonesty; now it's just a fishwrap of record to me.
NYT decided that race baiting was more profitable than journalism. They needed a new hook to lure in readers after the Russia probe failed to get Trump impeached, and they decided to go identity politics. In light of the outcome that we've witnessed this year (billions of dollars in damage from race riots, 40 deaths, law enforcement assassinated) we should ask Dean Basquet if it was worth it.
The revolution is devouring its own, and the New York Times is self-destructing. Very sad.
The revolution is devouring its own, and the New York Times is self-destructing. Very sad.
NYT Is Returning to America's Roots. As in Salem
Andrew Sullivan, The Spectator
<text snipped>
Personally, I find that development very "wonderful."
I look forward to that so-called "news"paper's eventual bankruptcy with great pleasure.
Why does someone in a moderately strong right-lean publication writing that the NYT is "imploding" mean that the NYT is in fact "imploding"?
Has the entire board, the CEO and CFO, all resigned? The owners desperately trying to sell? No, it sounds like someone is butthurt because the NYT didn't like what he said previously and did not want to be associated with it anymore.
Employers, publishers, whatever have every right to decide not to associate with someone based on their past but unchanging stance on something. Post some racist crap on Facebook, and you can't complain if your employer finds out in 8 years then fires you for it.
What news? You apparently didn't even read the bit of the article he did quote. The NYT is not imploding. Someone butthurt about severed connections is.
People have been saying the NY Times is finished for over a century.
The mods are the only ones that need thanking come to think of it. I cant still believe i am still here. So thanks guys.
You guys must be top scared to talk. But trust me. The mods on this site are the most liberal liberated i have ever come across.Dont be freightend to talk to me just because i have 5 warnings and 5 infractions.
NYT decided that race baiting was more profitable than journalism. They needed a new hook to lure in readers after the Russia probe failed to get Trump impeached, and they decided to go identity politics. In light of the outcome that we've witnessed this year (billions of dollars in damage from race riots, 40 deaths, law enforcement assassinated) we should ask Dean Basquet if it was worth it.
Boy, you are in your own world, where Trump was NOT impeached, as he said, I dont FEEL impeached.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?