3 ms·

This is absurd. The New York Times opinion section is primarily for right-of-center opinions that support the ruling class. They let in center left and actually

by ihm 6y ago

This is absurd. The New York Times opinion section is primarily for right-of-center opinions that support the ruling class. They let in center left and actually left ones from time to time to be able to claim it isn’t. They went a little too far right on this one for their readership. Have you ever seen an op-ed in the Times with a communist perspective on current affairs? To those who think I am being hyperbolic, here is an op-ed they published in 2018 to no backlash. Why We Miss the WASPs: Their more meritocratic, diverse and secular successors rule us neither as wisely nor as well. If you want to understand more, here is an article in which Bennet (now resigned editor of the op-ed section) describes his ideology explicitly: https://fair.org/home/top-nyt-editor-we-are-pro-capitalism-the-times-is-in-favor-of-capitalism/ https://fair.org/home/top-nyt-editor-we-are-pro-capitalism-t...

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
naravara 6y ago
While the article itself is kind of an exercise in dumb self-pity, and I don't think it hits the mark at all when talking about the Times, I will say I am noticing a pattern of "mind closing" in Leftist spaces over the past year. I think it really kicked into gear with the Democratic primary where a lot of the "New Left" media went into the tank for the Sanders campaign. Being too personally invested into a political campaign (especially a losing one) has a way of shorting out people's analytical brains. There's just a very strong ego-preservation incentive to shut naysayers up and to engage in obviously motivated reasoning to explain away failures, insist there is still hope even when there isn't, and to point fingers and deflect blame. These are all bad for keeping any sense of perspective, keeping an open mind about things, having a movement that can actually assimilate new facts as situations evolve, or be able to talk to people outside who aren't already bought in. It's kind of like a fractional distillation, eventually the heat starts boiling off different groups of people, who might have added vitality or useful intellectual perspective to the movement, until you're left with kind of a burnt-out sludge on the bottom. Of course, those outlets actually have really small readerships in the grand scheme of things. This dynamic mostly happens in smaller groups chats, forums, subreddits, discords, etc. But these groups do tend to punch above their weight in the minds of journalists because they're big on Twitter, and most journalists/media people spend way too much time on Twitter. I think what might be happening with the NYTimes debacle is people are reading their personal experiences in whatever smaller discussion groups they've been involved in into the Opinion section of the Times. What they're missing is the context that this is largely centrist journalists mad at a breach of standards rather than idealogues who can't just deal with people who disagree with them.
082349872349872 6y ago
Former communist, but I did see an op-ed from Putin in the Times. (looks like he's written one on Syria and one on Chechnya. As for the latter, Kadyrov is now on his side) I happen to think that the NYT was correct to have run Cotton's op-ed. It is good for the US public to be aware that some portion of their legislature believes that violence is like Java: if it hasn't worked yet you just haven't used enough of it.
- ihm 6y ago
  What does Putin have to do with anything? He runs a country that is not remotely communist (since at least 1991, nearly thirty years ago, last I checked)
  - 082349872349872 6y ago
    That's why I had the caveat of "former". However, he's published NYT op-eds, and isn't exactly, I believe, considered persona grata in US politics, so there is precedent for the NYT running "officially distasteful" opinions. Then again, the US doesn't seem to have any equivalent to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Camillo_and_Peppone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Camillo_and_Peppone
    - 082349872349872 6y ago
      After further reading, I get the impression that Bennet was already at odds with his newsroom, and far from being a "Cultural Revolution", running Cotton was simply the straw that shoved him out. I'm sure the free market will find him another job, and he seems like a smart guy, so this time around he'll probably get along better with his staff.

by ihm 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

naravara 6y ago

While the article itself is kind of an exercise in dumb self-pity, and I don't think it hits the mark at all when talking about the Times, I will say I am noticing a pattern of "mind closing" in Leftist spaces over the past year. I think it really kicked into gear with the Democratic primary where a lot of the "New Left" media went into the tank for the Sanders campaign. Being too personally invested into a political campaign (especially a losing one) has a way of shorting out people's analytical brains. There's just a very strong ego-preservation incentive to shut naysayers up and to engage in obviously motivated reasoning to explain away failures, insist there is still hope even when there isn't, and to point fingers and deflect blame. These are all bad for keeping any sense of perspective, keeping an open mind about things, having a movement that can actually assimilate new facts as situations evolve, or be able to talk to people outside who aren't already bought in. It's kind of like a fractional distillation, eventually the heat starts boiling off different groups of people, who might have added vitality or useful intellectual perspective to the movement, until you're left with kind of a burnt-out sludge on the bottom. Of course, those outlets actually have really small readerships in the grand scheme of things. This dynamic mostly happens in smaller groups chats, forums, subreddits, discords, etc. But these groups do tend to punch above their weight in the minds of journalists because they're big on Twitter, and most journalists/media people spend way too much time on Twitter. I think what might be happening with the NYTimes debacle is people are reading their personal experiences in whatever smaller discussion groups they've been involved in into the Opinion section of the Times. What they're missing is the context that this is largely centrist journalists mad at a breach of standards rather than idealogues who can't just deal with people who disagree with them.

082349872349872 6y ago

Former communist, but I did see an op-ed from Putin in the Times. (looks like he's written one on Syria and one on Chechnya. As for the latter, Kadyrov is now on his side) I happen to think that the NYT was correct to have run Cotton's op-ed. It is good for the US public to be aware that some portion of their legislature believes that violence is like Java: if it hasn't worked yet you just haven't used enough of it.

ihm 6y ago
What does Putin have to do with anything? He runs a country that is not remotely communist (since at least 1991, nearly thirty years ago, last I checked)
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  That's why I had the caveat of "former". However, he's published NYT op-eds, and isn't exactly, I believe, considered persona grata in US politics, so there is precedent for the NYT running "officially distasteful" opinions. Then again, the US doesn't seem to have any equivalent to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Camillo_and_Peppone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Camillo_and_Peppone
  - 082349872349872 6y ago
    After further reading, I get the impression that Bennet was already at odds with his newsroom, and far from being a "Cultural Revolution", running Cotton was simply the straw that shoved him out. I'm sure the free market will find him another job, and he seems like a smart guy, so this time around he'll probably get along better with his staff.