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

441–450 of 716 posts

Re: Resignation Letter

#441

Post by thsowers »

srpablo wrote: post #423

"People were mean to me and other opinion writers who weren't fact-checked and frequently got facts wrong. I'm not considering these complaints Free Speech, but our hurt feelings mean that Free Speech was hurt. My boss, James Bennett, solicited a piece from Tom Cotton that called for the state to take arms against protesters (protesting might called… speech?), and didn't read the piece before publishing it. The peopl…

> Bari is bad, only wants speech she likes to matter.

I am not at all familiar with the author of the letter, but could you elaborate on this? I didn't get that impression reading the letter, or what I assume is quotes from the author in your comment.

Re: Resignation Letter

#442

Post by ncr100 »

deleuze wrote: post #12
wait_a_minute wrote: post #6

That this is true at what is supposed to be a reputable publication like The New York Times makes me worried for companies and less known publications. Because if it's happening at the elite end of what is supposed to be curiosity-driven investigation, why wouldn't it be happening elsewhere? And so you end up with a culture where you can't speak about anything, where challenging the orthodoxy means you'll be forced i…

Bari Weiss is responsible for toxic culture in the first place. She's an absolute hypocrite here, so whatever conversation you want to have about speech, it probably shouldn't happen in this context.

Where is the cultural critique of Weiss coming from?

Is it this contribution, on the Joe Rogan podcast?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo3GM760a2s&feature=youtu.be - 11m, 2019 - Weiss talks about Tulsi Gabbard (?) as a sycophant. (YT person asserts dishonesty and hypocrisy.)

Re: Resignation Letter

#443

Post by dane-pgp »

dcolkitt wrote: post #394
jakelazaroff wrote: post #7

> All this bodes ill, especially for independent-minded young writers and editors paying close attention to what they’ll have to do to advance in their careers. Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, th…

There's a fantastic Slate Star Codex essay (which unfortunately I can't ironically link to, because that blog was cancelled by the New York Times) about the very point you raise. Basically anytime someone famous and successful comes out against cancel culture, the standard rejoinder is it can't be so bad. Doesn't seem to have stopped your career, so why are you whining? And the point is for every high-profile person…

I'm reminded of this Russell Brand quote, which points out a similar Catch-22:

“When I was poor and complained about inequality they said I was bitter; now that I'm rich and I complain about inequality they say I'm a hypocrite. I'm beginning to think they just don't want to talk about inequality.”

Re: Resignation Letter

#444

Post by greg5green »

monksy wrote: post #178
ngngngng wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

And for that there are still people that try to paint him as alt right. (Because he has had some alt right people interviewed on there) He's still going because he has had an independent publishing platform and he's not dependent on a media network to survive. If someone else were to do the same thing.. they couldn't survive.

>Because he has had some alt right people interviewed on there

People paint him that way not because he has them on there, but because he almost always lets them spew their nonsense without any push back because he isn't an actually good interviewer.

Re: Resignation Letter

#445

Post by davidf18 »

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #348
jrumbut wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have 1,600 journalists last year that were sent to 150 countries [1]. What other organization is doing anything like that effort to gather facts around the world? Who is doing more collective discovery (and making it accessible to the public at a price an average person can afford)? I can only think of a handful of organizations that are serious candidates (Reuters? The BBC? Wikipedia?). Weird puff pieces, drama…

the FT do a pretty good job, without as much of the problematic editorials. Probably not as useful to you if you're US based, but I find it really useful for living in Europe.

James Bennet, the Op-Ed Editor who had hired both Weiss and Stephens is Jewish. His brother is Colorado Senator Bennet. Their mother was in the Warsaw Ghetto and was sent out as a child by her parents just before the Nazis shipped the entire ghetto to the camps. She has an on-line oral history in the holocaust museum.

Both Stephens and Weiss are not only Jewish, but pro-Israel. Weiss had even written an entire recent book about anti-Semitism [1]. Many in the far left support the anti-Semitic Boycott Divest Sanction (BDS) movement against the only Jewish country in the world. China invaded Tibet, puts 3 million Muslims in camps, taking their DNA and facial recognition but no China BDS.

Bennet had also been Jerusalem Bureau Chief for NYT for 3 years and thus would be knowledgeable about the situation there. He may have stopped inaccuracies printed about Israel in his role.

Bennet was the likely candidate to be elevated to Exec Editor when the current one retired in a couple of years. I believe a lot of the staff didn't like Bennet because of Jewish/Israel stance and the idea of him being the Exec Editor frightened/angered them.

I believe that an external inspector general type figure should evaluate the entire situation. Weiss's complaints are consistent with a toxic work environment that nobody should have to deal with. She said the source of some of the harassment she experienced was on an internal slack channel and thus easy to investigate.

Readers of HN are analytical enough to realize that when something obvious isn't mentioned it may well be the underlying cause.

[1] Weiss: How to Fight Anti-Semitism https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07P51KC9Z/

Re: Resignation Letter

#446

Post by makomk »

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…

What makes this really ugly right now is that the New York Times thinks that the coronavirus pandemic is going to get Trump voted out of office, and their need to push hard on the idea that it's all his fault has really done a number on their reporting about the biggest crisis facing the world. Especially once it turned out all that the success story countries they pointed to as proof America could've done better if not for Trump weren't succeeding after all, and once America went from having a terrible testing program to one of the best to no avail despite the supposed vital importance of testing playing a huge part in their blame-Trump narrative.

Re: Resignation Letter

#447

Post by archagon »

eric_b wrote: post #211

The "orthodoxy" the author writes about is real. I am a skeptic and cynic by nature. In my experience "common wisdom" is usually anything but. In software and technology I've found when you eschew dogma and "best practices" you more often than not get better results. But, in 2020 you cannot question or be skeptical of the "progressive" agenda. Merely hinting that you are not fully bought in will get you labeled as a…

> The group of folks that screamed to high heaven about the rise of "facism" in 2016 have become the very people they purportedly despised.

I find this downright angering to read given the recent shenanigans with SDNY and the Stone commutation (plus everything else that has happened... oh... once a day over the past few years). And you have the gall that the left are the real fascists?

Re: Resignation Letter

#448

Post by cm2187 »

jrumbut wrote: post #153
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…

They have 1,600 journalists last year that were sent to 150 countries [1]. What other organization is doing anything like that effort to gather facts around the world? Who is doing more collective discovery (and making it accessible to the public at a price an average person can afford)? I can only think of a handful of organizations that are serious candidates (Reuters? The BBC? Wikipedia?). Weird puff pieces, drama…

News agencies (Reuters, AFP, AP, Bloomberg, etc) and without (or at least with a lot less) pontification and political bias.

Re: Resignation Letter

#449

Post by slg »

manfredo wrote: post #428
slg wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A hostile work environment requires discrimination. She is not being discriminated against. Having smart and well supported opinions is part of the requirements of her job. Therefore her opinions are subject to extra scrutiny compared to the opinions of someone who is asked to do an entirely different job.

No, a hostile work environment does not require discrimination. A workplace that is entirely non-discriminatory but does nothing when one co-worker relentlessly bullies and harasses another co-worker is still a hostile workplace. You seem to be misled by the fact that anti-discrimination laws prohibit hostile workplaces, and that hostile workplaces are considered a form of discrimination, but there's no requirement t…

Did you read the page you linked? The very first sentence of the body of the page states:

>Harassment is a form of employment discrimination...

It goes on to say:

>Harassment is unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.

They are defining harassment as requiring the behavior to be based on a protected class and categorizing it as a subset of discrimination. Therefore if a hostile environment requires harassment, it inherently requires discrimination.

Re: Resignation Letter

#450

Post by joshuamorton »

manfredo wrote: post #428
slg wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A hostile work environment requires discrimination. She is not being discriminated against. Having smart and well supported opinions is part of the requirements of her job. Therefore her opinions are subject to extra scrutiny compared to the opinions of someone who is asked to do an entirely different job.

No, a hostile work environment does not require discrimination. A workplace that is entirely non-discriminatory but does nothing when one co-worker relentlessly bullies and harasses another co-worker is still a hostile workplace. You seem to be misled by the fact that anti-discrimination laws prohibit hostile workplaces, and that hostile workplaces are considered a form of discrimination, but there's no requirement t…

From that page:

> Harassment is unwelcome conduct that is based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.

So, yes, for it to be a hostile workplace under the laws you're talking about, it would need to be based on one of those aspects, not just because people disagree with her opinions.

Post reply on HN