Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Resignation Letter

bariweiss.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 716 posts

Re: Resignation Letter

#161

Post by ideals »

ngngngng wrote: post #47
jgwil2 wrote: post #14

> Americans still hunger for news that is accurate, opinions that are vital, and debate that is sincere. The market would suggest otherwise.

Completely disagree. And I think Joe Rogan's podcast is the perfect example of how the market is suggesting exactly what you replied to. "Normal Americans" don't read the NYT anymore, or WSJ, or the Post, they listen to Joe Rogan on Spotify and Youtube. There's virtually no limit to who Joe will have on his show, and while he's not a remarkable interviewer, he brings the often vital opinions of his guests on all side…

How long have you been listening to JRE?

This reads like someone who discovered it because Elon Musk showed up along with a bunch of other celebrities in the last 2 years.

Give it some more time and you'll get over this savant view of Rogan. If anything I'd recommend going back to watching some episodes when it was filmed in his living room, not his millionaire's playground shop

Re: Resignation Letter

#162

Post by tomjakubowski »

mellosouls wrote: post #28

There seems to be more and more public acknowledgement (and in fora like this one) of the myriad leftist 1984-style attacks we are currently witnessing - every bit as bad as the McCarthy era led by the right. As appalling as the behaviour of these people is, that growing awareness can only be a good thing.

Your coworkers and people on Twitter making fun of you isn't comparable to McCarthyism.

Re: Resignation Letter

#163

Post by fermienrico »

dimgl wrote: post #118
fermienrico wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You nailed the problem, this needs to stop.

Funnily enough I'm getting pretty actively downvoted. It's sad... I always thought of Hacker News as a place to have friendly discussion.

Instead of downvoting, we need to understand each other better. So many centrists and right-wing views are shunned. I don't agree with them and if they're obviously racist/flamebait, we shouldn't feed it, but if someone has a dissenting view about liberal/progressive stances, we should listen to them. Ask them why they think that way. That's so much more interesting to me.

Re: Resignation Letter

#164

Post by seppin »

asdf21 wrote: post #43
CJefferson wrote: post #15

Speaking as someone who absorbs American media externally, there does seem to be a disconnect looking in. About 40% of the America seems to still support Donald Trump, under most polls. It certainly isn't true that 40% of the media supports Donald Trump. As an external viewer, it's easy to imagine no-one was ever going to vote for Donald Trump, no-one ever supported him, and no-one supports him today, but that's clea…

Exactly right. Something like 97% of news coverage is critical towards Trump. I'm not sure what that number should be, but 97% seems like there is a deeper and systemic issue.

If by critical you mean reporting what he does and what he says, then yes. That's probably around 97%.

Why you think the above is somehow editorialized, I don't know. I think most mainstream news outlets do an incredible job maintaining their calm while reporting truly absurd and dangerously ignorant actions of the current US President.

Re: Resignation Letter

#165

Post by Terretta »

CJefferson wrote: post #15

Speaking as someone who absorbs American media externally, there does seem to be a disconnect looking in. About 40% of the America seems to still support Donald Trump, under most polls. It certainly isn't true that 40% of the media supports Donald Trump. As an external viewer, it's easy to imagine no-one was ever going to vote for Donald Trump, no-one ever supported him, and no-one supports him today, but that's clea…

As a hypothetical, imagine a leader who was consistently right. To be fair and balanced, what % of press coverage should be negative?

What if the idea that a fair and balanced press should split equally pro and con is itself a disconnect?

Re: Resignation Letter

#166

Post by quotemstr »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #27

> Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I…

> Can't anyone there see past the current insanity and think?

The bitter lesson of the 20th century is that the answer to this question is "no". Read Eric Hoffer's "The True Believer": in this book, Hoffer looks into how mass movements compel masses of people to forego independent judgement for a sense of belonging and righteousness. He wrote the book 70 years ago, but it's as relevant as ever.

Re: Resignation Letter

#167

Post by joshuamorton »

seibelj wrote: post #123
jakelazaroff wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with this rebuttal is that it assumes that the high–level writers and editors are not themselves the illiberal and anti–speech proponents, gatekeeping what perspectives are allowed to be represented in the first place. For example: Harper's Magazine, which published the recent open letter on cancel culture that Bari Weiss signed, doesn't pay its interns [1], ensuring that only those who can afford to work…

Rather than criticize the content of the letter, you attack Harper's for not paying interns, which is unrelated to the content. Classic tactic for silencing disagreement is to attack the source. What do you disagree with in the Harper's letter itself (the content, not the publication or the signatories), and why?

The content ignores context of the discussion. Lies by omission are still lies, and trying to ignore them is bad faith to those who recognize them.

Re: Resignation Letter

#169

Post by jimbokun »

alecb wrote: post #4

There's several layers of irony here, chief of which Bari Weiss headed a very vocal campaign to fire anyone at Colombia who didn't exist on the far-right on Israel/Palestine - and of course, falsely painted several professors as racist and anti-Semitic: https://theintercept.com/2018/03/08/the-nyts-bari-weiss-fals...

Did you read that wall of text?

I can’t find the part where she tries to get anyone “fired”. Just claims that she criticized Muslim scholars, and arguing that is automatically racist.

I had a hard time finding direct quotes of the bad things she said, mostly just quotes from others saying how bad she is and how much they don’t like her.

Re: Resignation Letter

#170

Post by Benjammer »

mikece wrote: post #3

"Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at [the New York Times]: 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." This is a very key point, and what are the consequences of "informing everyone of a truth" that doesn't accurately reflect -- of even contradicts! -- reality? Harm to the reput…

That just sounds like bluster and emotion to me though.

Why is truth not a process of collective discovery?

Is this implying that truth used to be this and now is not?

What exactly does "collective discovery" mean in the context of a newspaper?

What evidence is there that this used to be the case and now is not?

What is the new "orthodoxy"?

Are you able to describe this orthodoxy in specific terms and not just labels?

Who are these "enlightened few"?

What do you mean by "whose job it is"?

When have these "few" "informed everyone else", specifically?

I do not mean to imply there are no answers to these questions, or that the answers will fall one way or the other. I just fail to see why I should take those statements seriously as "a very key point" without a lot more explanation and evidence. She starts to explain a few things before these statements that sound interesting, but then immediately starts ranting about Twitter instead.

Post reply on HN