• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Implosion of the New York Times

Mr Person said:
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.
Click to expand...
The "imploding" is the OP's interpretation. It's not in the article. More like wishful thinking on Jack's part.
 
Meh the NYT can have good reporting at times but their opinion columnists tend to be shit opinions by people who dont know what they are talking about. Their “oh look a dapper nazi that isnt your grandparent’s nazis” is a good example.
 
Mr Person said:
Yeah, I was being facetious.

Guy gets fired from New York Magazine, the NYT wanted to run a profile of the guy, and an NYT reporter wrote title that hurt is feelings because he wouldn't recant an opinion about the role of genetics in intelligence. Somehow Jack Hays went from there to "imploding".
Click to expand...
Ohh those jokers lol...
 
The New York Times is not a newspaper. It is corporate propaganda, a PR publication for corporate interests and nothing else. What you read in the NYT is less accurate than most newspaper advertisements - but then the entire NYT is advertising for corporate interests.
 
I keep hearing the NYT imploded, this hasnt happened yet.
 
The NYT has been dying for ages, right? I've been hearing about how it's been dying my entire life.
 
Jack Hays said:
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. . . .
Click to expand...

I actually read the article and it seemed pretty fair to me. He praises Sullivan repeatedly, but apparently if the author disagrees with Sullivan on the one subject of race, and more to the point how the Bell Curve is used by racists to justify racism, then it's to 'cancel' Sullivan. It's kind of Orwellian, actually, but that's the claim. Sullivan is whining about cancel culture because some NYT author criticized him in the same piece he praised him. CANCELLED!!!

The biggest sin of the article appears to be the headline, because a fair reading of the article is pretty balanced. And of course Sullivan lies about what the article says, which is the author called him an 'indefensible racist.' He didn't, or anything close to it.
 
JasperL said:
I actually read the article and it seemed pretty fair to me. He praises Sullivan repeatedly, but apparently if the author disagrees with Sullivan on the one subject of race, and more to the point how the Bell Curve is used by racists to justify racism, then it's to 'cancel' Sullivan. It's kind of Orwellian, actually, but that's the claim. Sullivan is whining about cancel culture because some NYT author criticized him in the same piece he praised him. CANCELLED!!!

The biggest sin of the article appears to be the headline, because a fair reading of the article is pretty balanced. And of course Sullivan lies about what the article says, which is the author called him an 'indefensible racist.' He didn't, or anything close to it.
Click to expand...
The whole point was to set up Sullivan as an indefensible racist: "I can't defend him." From the OP:

". . . 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. . . ."
 
Jack Hays said:
The whole point was to set up Sullivan as an indefensible racist: "I can't defend him." From the OP:

". . . 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. . . ."
Click to expand...

I read the OP the first time, and don't need you to repeat it. If you want to read and quote from the actual NYT article to defend your point, you can. I know what the NYT wrote and Sullivan lies about what it said. He not only didn't call him a "racist" or the equivalent, but he defended him throughout the article, praised him repeatedly, both as a pioneer and his current output. What Sullivan is demanding, at the risk of being cancelled, is for the NYT to recognize that his position on race and IQ and The Bell Curve is perfectly defensible. Well, can reasonable minds not disagree on that? If the NYT doesn't agree with Sullivan, that's to "cancel" Sullivan?
 
Jack Hays said:
So what?
Click to expand...

You posted the article without comment, and I gave my opinion of it, which it was typical Greenwald spending thousands of words ranting about a non-issue.

If you didn't want people to read and respond, why did you post a bare link to it? If you disagree with my comment, you can. Was there something worthwhile in that article I missed? You must have thought it was worth posting for some reason. Care to say why?

FWIW, the headline of Greenwald's article was also dishonest. The NYT Guild didn't demand that Stephens be "censored."
 
JasperL said:
I read the OP the first time, and don't need you to repeat it. If you want to read and quote from the actual NYT article to defend your point, you can. I know what the NYT wrote and Sullivan lies about what it said. He not only didn't call him a "racist" or the equivalent, but he defended him throughout the article, praised him repeatedly, both as a pioneer and his current output. What Sullivan is demanding, at the risk of being cancelled, is for the NYT to recognize that his position on race and IQ and The Bell Curve is perfectly defensible. Well, can reasonable minds not disagree on that? If the NYT doesn't agree with Sullivan, that's to "cancel" Sullivan?
Click to expand...
Yes. When the NYT author said he could not defend Sullivan, he was calling him an indefensible racist.
 
JasperL said:
You posted the article without comment, and I gave my opinion of it, which it was typical Greenwald spending thousands of words ranting about a non-issue.

If you didn't want people to read and respond, why did you post a bare link to it? If you disagree with my comment, you can. Was there something worthwhile in that article I missed? You must have thought it was worth posting for some reason. Care to say why?
Click to expand...
It's good information, and a thoughtful point of view.
 
Jack Hays said:
Yes. When the NYT author said he could not defend Sullivan, he was calling him an indefensible racist.
Click to expand...

LOL. Those dots don't actually connect, but if you believe they do, I can't change your mind about it.

I will say you're pointedly not quoting from the article, even where the NYT discusses Sullivan and the race/IQ/Bell Curve issue. It's because those words actually written contradict such a simplistic conclusion. And a headline alone does not substitute for a very long and largely positive profile of Sullivan. You know better than that - you know that headlines are click bait. We don't even know who wrote it. And yet that's all you or Sullivan appear to care about.
 
JasperL said:
LOL. Those dots don't actually connect, but if you believe they do, I can't change your mind about it.

I will say you're pointedly not quoting from the article, even where the NYT discusses Sullivan and the race/IQ/Bell Curve issue. It's because those words actually written contradict such a simplistic conclusion. And a headline alone does not substitute for a very long and largely positive profile of Sullivan. You know better than that - you know that headlines are click bait. We don't even know who wrote it. And yet that's all you or Sullivan appear to care about.
Click to expand...
The headline called him an indefensible racist. They could easily have said they disagreed with his view but respected his right to it. They did not.
 
Jack Hays said:
It's good information, and a thoughtful point of view.
Click to expand...

LOL. If you say so. I thought it was long winded drivel myself, but to each his own. His premise was the NYT Guild - the union as a whole - demanded Stephens be "censored," when what happened is some guy with the Twitter rights sent a poorly worded tweet that the union itself had taken down because it was stupid, and that didn't in fact call for Brett to be censored. Like Sullivan, to Greenwald, apparently criticizing a white guy means to CANCEL HIM.
 
JasperL said:
LOL. If you say so. I thought it was long winded drivel myself, but to each his own. His premise was the NYT Guild - the union as a whole - demanded Stephens be "censored," when what happened is some guy with the Twitter rights sent a poorly worded tweet that the union itself had taken down because it was stupid, and that didn't in fact call for Brett to be censored. Like Sullivan, to Greenwald, apparently criticizing a white guy means to CANCEL HIM.
Click to expand...
Just more evidence of the decline of the NYT.
 
Jack Hays said:
The headline called him an indefensible racist. They could easily have said they disagreed with his view but respected his right to it. They did not.
Click to expand...

It was a headline, that didn't call him that:

I’m Still Reading Andrew Sullivan. But I Can’t Defend Him.
He’s one of the most influential journalists of the last three decades, but he’s shadowed by a 1994 magazine cover story that claimed to show a link between race and I.Q.
Click to expand...

The rest of the article repeatedly defended and praised him. They disagree on race. That's to CANCEL him apparently.

Jack Hays said:
Just more evidence of the decline of the NYT.
Click to expand...

It was one Tweet, quickly deleted.

Greenwald: 12,000 word treatise!

Lesson from both examples - Criticizing conservative rich white guys sitting at the top of their professions is to CANCEL THEM!
 
JasperL said:
It was a headline, that didn't call him that:



The rest of the article repeatedly defended and praised him. They disagree on race. That's to CANCEL him apparently.



It was one Tweet, quickly deleted.

Greenwald: 12,000 word treatise!

Lesson from both examples - Criticizing conservative rich white guys sitting at the top of their professions is to CANCEL THEM!
Click to expand...
Yes, it is.
 
Is the NYT dead yet?
 
nota bene said:
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.
Click to expand...
Journalism is tough, and especially on paper budgets now. They are all struggling to ALWAYS get things right, all the way to the smallest detail.
 
Guyzilla said:
Boy, you are in your own world, where Trump was NOT impeached, as he said, I dont FEEL impeached.
Click to expand...
When you control the house votes with enough to wield impeachment as a political tool you can "impeach" but you can't convict. Democrats knew it had no chance of happening, yet they did it as just another tool to discredit Trump and draw attention away from investigations into their many false accusations and the crimes of framing a candidate for president, lying to federal judges to get FISA warrants and spying on a candidate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom