4 ms·

> Newspapers like NYT are one of the few institutions where workers enjoy a level of freedom from management in doing their work. The other example is tenured p

> Newspapers like NYT are one of the few institutions where workers enjoy a level of freedom from management in doing their work. The other example is tenured professors. PhD student here. I think the impression that tenured professors have freedom from management is an illusion at best. As far as I can tell, getting a PhD, getting hired as a professor, and getting tenure seem to filter out people who would challenge the system. It's easy for a university to say that their tenured faculty are free to do whatever they want if they select and cultivate people who won't take them up on that offer. (Now that I write this, I'm reminded of web hosting companies that offer unlimited storage or bandwidth but get irritated if you actually use a lot of storage or bandwidth.) Personally, I'm leaning towards the conclusions of the financial independence/early retirement community: real freedom comes when you have "FU money". Money is the unit of freedom in the US.

whymauri 7y ago
I think the degree of disobedience from faculty varies between disciplines and schools. Professors in the humanities seem more inclined towards activism or iconoclasm than STEM. This isn't a dig at anyone, it's just that people who study social structures, interactions, and trends are seemingly more inclined to exert their ideological freedom(s). Meanwhile in STEM fields I think you're totally right: we keep our heads down and hyper-optimize for publishing research, leaving little space for rebellion or questioning of the academic status quo.
- golergka 7y ago
  > Professors in the humanities seem more inclined towards activism or iconoclasm than STEM. But said activism is not usually any kind of disagreement with school administration though.
rjf72 7y ago
I expect the same is also true of whatever freedom may exist for NYTimes writers. The site has taken a sharp and extremely homogeneous ideological slant in recent years on a wide array of different topics. This is ostensibly indicative of editorial manipulation, but it's also possible that instead they simply make sure to hire only journalists that already align with their biases and will, at the minimum, toe the line without needing to be told. Compare this with people such as e.g. Glenn Greenwald who seems to have achieved "FU money" and you actually see insightful and meaningful journalism [1] that isn't boxed into predictable ideological or partisan tropes. Of course he doesn't live in the US anymore either. Money isn't the unit of freedom in the US - it's the unit of freedom in the world. Not such a bad thing in many ways though. In times past your blood lineage was the unit of freedom. Money can be earned even from humble beginnings, but lineage cannot. [1] - https://theintercept.com/staff/glenn-greenwald/ https://theintercept.com/staff/glenn-greenwald/
- pessimizer 7y ago
  It's important to note that Greenwald is sponsored by Omidyar, not independent with "FU money."
- inlined 7y ago
  FU money is the freedom to leave an organization, not to improve or change it. Those that want to do good may feel trapped in their org because they feel that should they leave things will get worse.
- vkou 7y ago
  > that isn't boxed into predictable ideological or partisan tropes What makes you think Greenwald's writing is not predictably ideological? Sure, it's not partisan, in the sense that no particular party aligns with his ideological biases.
  - rjf72 7y ago
    The question is not whether one has biases or not, but whether or not they're held captive to them. When you read a headline from let's say CNN with what sort of accuracy can you predict exactly what sort of slant the article will come with, even when such is not implied directly by the headline? It's going to be quite high because the site is held captive by its own biases. Of course everybody is influenced by their biases, but fortunately we have the intelligence to ensure that our biases are but a component of our decision making process rather than being that process in and of themselves. Because of this when you find an individual (or organization) that makes some effort to be impartial it can be difficult to determine where they will land on many issues. As an example Greenwald is gay and lives in Brazil with his husband. The current president of Brazil is Jair Bolsonaro who has made statements such as 'I could not love a gay son; if I had one I would prefer he die in an accident.' This [1] is Greenwald explaining why Bolsonaro was elected. It's easy to expect to see him just repeat tropes. And this is something that increasingly often the NYTimes is doing such as here [2] where they chose to publish, without elaboration: "Mr. Bolsonaro is ... a brash nationalist whose populist appeal comes partly from his use of Twitter and his history of making crude statements about women, gay people and indigenous groups." Bolsonaro won by a 10 point margin in a country that was and remains very liberal. The only reason the NYT characterization is not overtly fake is because of the use of the weasel word "partly." Instead Greenwald acknowledged the tropes are going to make up some part of Bolsonaro's support, but then got to the important question - why completely normal and unbiased people, and even some LGBT types, would be voting for people such as Bolsonaro. Obviously he does not want to do this. We like to demonize people we don't like - it's human nature. He'd like to imagine Bolsonaro's base is just loaded with monsters and slur them all as being racists, misogynists, homophobes, or whatever else. But this is, of course, not the case. And so he ends up considering things he would probably rather not consider. And that, rising above one's biases and petty instincts, is at the heart of effective, meaningful, and responsible journalism. [1] - https://theintercept.com/2018/10/29/the-lessons-for-western-democracies-from-the-stunning-victory-of-brazils-jair-bolsonaro/ https://theintercept.com/2018/10/29/the-lessons-for-western-... [2] - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/19/us/politics/bolsonaro-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/19/us/politics/bolsonaro-tru...
inflatableDodo 7y ago
>As far as I can tell, getting a PhD, getting hired as a professor, and getting tenure seem to filter out people who would challenge the system. Reminds me of Noam Chomsky's comment to Andrew Marr while being interviewed - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2EPgix5_5w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2EPgix5_5w
- MaxBarraclough 7y ago
  And yet everyone's heard of Chomsky.

whymauri 7y ago

I think the degree of disobedience from faculty varies between disciplines and schools. Professors in the humanities seem more inclined towards activism or iconoclasm than STEM. This isn't a dig at anyone, it's just that people who study social structures, interactions, and trends are seemingly more inclined to exert their ideological freedom(s). Meanwhile in STEM fields I think you're totally right: we keep our heads down and hyper-optimize for publishing research, leaving little space for rebellion or questioning of the academic status quo.

golergka 7y ago
> Professors in the humanities seem more inclined towards activism or iconoclasm than STEM. But said activism is not usually any kind of disagreement with school administration though.

rjf72 7y ago

I expect the same is also true of whatever freedom may exist for NYTimes writers. The site has taken a sharp and extremely homogeneous ideological slant in recent years on a wide array of different topics. This is ostensibly indicative of editorial manipulation, but it's also possible that instead they simply make sure to hire only journalists that already align with their biases and will, at the minimum, toe the line without needing to be told. Compare this with people such as e.g. Glenn Greenwald who seems to have achieved "FU money" and you actually see insightful and meaningful journalism [1] that isn't boxed into predictable ideological or partisan tropes. Of course he doesn't live in the US anymore either. Money isn't the unit of freedom in the US - it's the unit of freedom in the world. Not such a bad thing in many ways though. In times past your blood lineage was the unit of freedom. Money can be earned even from humble beginnings, but lineage cannot. [1] - https://theintercept.com/staff/glenn-greenwald/ https://theintercept.com/staff/glenn-greenwald/

pessimizer 7y ago
It's important to note that Greenwald is sponsored by Omidyar, not independent with "FU money."
inlined 7y ago
FU money is the freedom to leave an organization, not to improve or change it. Those that want to do good may feel trapped in their org because they feel that should they leave things will get worse.
vkou 7y ago
> that isn't boxed into predictable ideological or partisan tropes What makes you think Greenwald's writing is not predictably ideological? Sure, it's not partisan, in the sense that no particular party aligns with his ideological biases.
- rjf72 7y ago
  The question is not whether one has biases or not, but whether or not they're held captive to them. When you read a headline from let's say CNN with what sort of accuracy can you predict exactly what sort of slant the article will come with, even when such is not implied directly by the headline? It's going to be quite high because the site is held captive by its own biases. Of course everybody is influenced by their biases, but fortunately we have the intelligence to ensure that our biases are but a component of our decision making process rather than being that process in and of themselves. Because of this when you find an individual (or organization) that makes some effort to be impartial it can be difficult to determine where they will land on many issues. As an example Greenwald is gay and lives in Brazil with his husband. The current president of Brazil is Jair Bolsonaro who has made statements such as 'I could not love a gay son; if I had one I would prefer he die in an accident.' This [1] is Greenwald explaining why Bolsonaro was elected. It's easy to expect to see him just repeat tropes. And this is something that increasingly often the NYTimes is doing such as here [2] where they chose to publish, without elaboration: "Mr. Bolsonaro is ... a brash nationalist whose populist appeal comes partly from his use of Twitter and his history of making crude statements about women, gay people and indigenous groups." Bolsonaro won by a 10 point margin in a country that was and remains very liberal. The only reason the NYT characterization is not overtly fake is because of the use of the weasel word "partly." Instead Greenwald acknowledged the tropes are going to make up some part of Bolsonaro's support, but then got to the important question - why completely normal and unbiased people, and even some LGBT types, would be voting for people such as Bolsonaro. Obviously he does not want to do this. We like to demonize people we don't like - it's human nature. He'd like to imagine Bolsonaro's base is just loaded with monsters and slur them all as being racists, misogynists, homophobes, or whatever else. But this is, of course, not the case. And so he ends up considering things he would probably rather not consider. And that, rising above one's biases and petty instincts, is at the heart of effective, meaningful, and responsible journalism. [1] - https://theintercept.com/2018/10/29/the-lessons-for-western-democracies-from-the-stunning-victory-of-brazils-jair-bolsonaro/ https://theintercept.com/2018/10/29/the-lessons-for-western-... [2] - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/19/us/politics/bolsonaro-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/19/us/politics/bolsonaro-tru...

inflatableDodo 7y ago

>As far as I can tell, getting a PhD, getting hired as a professor, and getting tenure seem to filter out people who would challenge the system. Reminds me of Noam Chomsky's comment to Andrew Marr while being interviewed - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2EPgix5_5w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2EPgix5_5w

MaxBarraclough 7y ago
And yet everyone's heard of Chomsky.