571–580 of 716 posts
People here are debating whether Weiss is a good person or not and whether they like her opinions or not. I think we're missing the key point in this letter, which is that she's saying that she experienced workplace harassment at the Times. That's unacceptable. My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist;…
"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…
Reuters [0], for one, which boasts "2500 journalists and 600 photojournalists."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters
A key thing to understand about the editorial / news hybrids like the NYT, CNN, or Fox News is that they're selling multiple products under the same umbrella: the "reporting" product is side-by-side with the "editorial" product. The editorial content is almost always useless garbage, and it exists solely to generate clicks/views/etc. A lot of the whining about cancel culture is from people who tend to write editorial content, and I don't shed any tears for them, but the failure mode of these orgs is that the editorial section has developed such a strong brand (and their audiences are increasingly polarized), such that their now Twitter-policed editorial viewpoint is increasingly expected to be enforced in the "real" news products, too.
If you want less biased reporting, there are outlets that provide it, but they tend to not publish as much inflammatory clickbait and thus tend to go under the radar of many information consumers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They are getting low level employees fired from their jobs This is an interesting intersection. It either implies that all employers are left-aligned (not true) and therefore willing to fire employees that hold right-leaning opinions, OR that low level employees are so expendable that it literally any reason can get them fired if enough people complain.
I think HR departments just want to offload risk and they'll take advantage of loose labor laws to offload an employee who got mobbed online. I don't ascribe a right or left bias to them. It's the mob that has the bias (perhaps because of age or ideology or certainty or something else) and the mob uses the technology and then the HR department responds by firing the employee.
It has more to do with aggregate action, which has recently been made possible with platforms like Twitter, than with the particular ideological stances.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Weird to see Joe Rogan here, he literally just parrots whatever his guest is saying. Used to love watching until I realized he just repeats whatever sentiment his guest is saying. He had Stefan Molyneux and Gavin McInees on, and never once challenged them on their white supremacist views.
A bit of aside admittedly but not knowing much about Molyneux I checked to see his credentials as a 'white supremacist'. Perhaps I should I have just relied on what Twitter and countless parrot sites say about him (try a search on his name). But I didn't. In https://www.freedomain.com/2020/07/07/what-i-believe-stefan-... I found: "I do not believe that any race is “superior” or “inferior.”. "Eugenics is a government…
That's the issue with all of this, people like Molyneux put on a smile and a suit, covering up with vague statements and dog whistles.
> 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…
But not in the NY times, where she seems to have been illegally harassed. I'm pretty sure you understand this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could have made that point if they had not just purged the leadership of the opinion section because they dared to publish some republicans opinion piece. When even international press criticise what they did at NY Times it you know you have a problem.
Firstly, the leader of the opinion section resigned, and secondly, it wasn't because of a republican opinion piece - of which there have been hundreds, but because the editorial standards of the Op-Ed section repeatedly fell short of the standards they claimed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh no, people are using their free speech to criticize the speech of others!
What are you saying? You think, "I hope you get raped" is a critical response?
But I'm sure such dogged defenders of free speech normally send other reporters after people to acccuse them of being anti-Semitic for a joke about them on Twitter: https://twitter.com/hels/status/1283092586392178695?s=20
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…
> 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? Reuters [0], for one, which boasts "2500 journalists and 600 photojournalists." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters A key thing to understand about the editorial / news hybrids like the NYT, CNN, or Fox News is that they're selling multiple product…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you're against people expressing their opinions in response to your own?
The poster stated nothing of the sort. You're conflating "expressing opinions" (by clicking a button) with: making it less likely for the poster's expression to ever be seen.
What all this concern trolling really sounds like isn't an actual defense of values of free speech, but rather sheltering someone from the speech of others.