8 ms·

I unsubscribed from the NYT after the Tom Cotton editorial. That's when it became clear to me that their ethics were driven by a need to drive traffic to their

I unsubscribed from the NYT after the Tom Cotton editorial. That's when it became clear to me that their ethics were driven by a need to drive traffic to their site and I wanted no part in it. Stuff like this just reaffirms my decision. Good riddance.

fullshark 6y ago
I think that decision was worse than a sign that they have given in to market forces. They have given in to internal activists who have no desire to learn, think, or report the truth, merely use the paper as a weapon for social change.
- nickthemagicman 6y ago
  That's Matt Taiabbis proposition too. https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-itself https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-i...
  - rendall 6y ago
    Awesome! Another reader of Taibbi's. By the way, the Post Gazette seems to have stolen that article, so maybe don't drive business their way. https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1274747185507246081?s=20 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1274747185507246081?s=20 Instead, here is Taibbi's substack. If you're off a mind, a subscription is only $40 per year, but the stolen article is nevertheless free. https://taibbi.substack.com/ https://taibbi.substack.com/
    - nickthemagicman 6y ago
      Hey thanks! I just grabbed from the first google link. That's SUPER messed up. I hope he sues. Will update. Love Taibbi!
  - tomjakubowski 6y ago
    A response: https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/taibbi-cotton-free-speech/ https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/taibbi-cotton-fre...
    - nickthemagicman 6y ago
      Interesting and good point. I could see how people could think that it's good idea to censor violent extremist viewpoints. I tend towards Taibbi's interpretation of publishing anything because I would rather err on the side of releasing dangerous info and let people decide for themselves, than having a media police that police what we read.
- at-fates-hands 6y ago
  > They have given in to internal activists who have no desire to learn, think, or report the truth. I am shocked and saddened this is where we are as a society. Literally one man's opinion distressed so many people, in such a way, they felt the need to raise an army and then descend on their employer and demand they remove, recant and say it will never happen again? We have arrived at a time in place where you cannot have your own opinion without fear of the rage mob coming after you. “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” George Orwell -1984
  - evgen 6y ago
    That man was a United States Senator who suggested using the military to suppress political dissent. The suggestion that this is some minor newspeak squabble or a brief outbreak of political correctness grossly underplays how dangerous this suggestion was and the seeing you try to use Orwell to support your point is even more ridiculous.
    - happythomist 6y ago
      Actually, the op-ed states: > Some elites have excused this orgy of violence in the spirit of radical chic, calling it an understandable response to the wrongful death of George Floyd. Those excuses are built on a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters. A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants. But the rioting has nothing to do with George Floyd, whose bereaved relatives have condemned violence. Setting aside whether using the Insurrection Act to respond to rioting and looting is an appropriate response, it is quite clear that Tom Cotton is not advocating the use of the the military to "suppress political dissent", which would obviously violate the First Amendment.
      - philwelch 6y ago
fennecfoxen 6y ago
Traditionally, newspapers' Opinion and Editorial sections have solicited contributions from major political figures. The Wall Street Journal, for instance, has run the following: "The Change We Need" (by Barack Obama) "A Partisan Impeachment, a Profile in Courage" (by Mike Pence) "I Can Defeat Trump and the Clinton Doctrine" (by Tulsi Gabbard) "Blame the Fed for the Financial Crisis" (by Ron Paul) "How Short-Termism Saps the Economy" (by Joe Biden) "Why I Support the Ryan Roadmap" (by Sarah Palin) "Why Americans Are So Angry" and "Trump Is the Worst Kind of Socialist" (by Bernie Sanders) "Companies Shouldn’t Be Accountable Only to Shareholders" (by Elizabeth Warren) Readers of the Journal typically value these pieces as the newsworthy opinions of important figures, even if they disagree with the authors and the politics therein quite vehemently. Very few readers would mistake these pieces' publication for an endorsement, or for depraved and wanton profit-seeking. Rather, publication of these opinions is itself a form of journalism. Readers of the Times today, however, seem to expect that the ethics of the Times ought to be driven by the Times waging total war on their common political enemies, and that to do otherwise is an offense against decency. The Times does a good job of waging such a war in the general case, sometimes quite laudably; when it does make its exceptions, however, allowing things like the Cotton editorial, it has generally been in the service of Journalism as well, communicating the newsworthy opinions of important figures. You should not fear, my erstwhile Times-reading comrade! All signs indicate that the Times has capitulated, and your victory over the forces of Journalism has been secured. (edit: Added the Bernie Sanders and Warren editorials to the list)
- gesticulator 6y ago
  This is stunning false equivalence. None of the opinions you offered are similar to Tom Cotton’s apologia for “sending in the tanks”. The NYT Opinions section is still, for better or worse, still quite diverse in its opinions. Ross Douthat and David Brooks are not leaving anytime soon.
  - fennecfoxen 6y ago
    > None of the opinions you offered are similar to Tom Cotton’s apologia for “sending in the tanks” What makes this matter? Precisely, why? Does not the radical character of this editorial highlight, as starkly as ever, that this is grossly at odds with the official opinion of the Grey Lady? Do you somehow impute a net persuasive power to its appearance in those pages? Do you therefore believe the publication presents an increased risk that such a scheme will be carried out? How? Do you perhaps believe that many dangerous racists will find themselves emboldened by its publication, as if racists with a military-police fetish were notorious for subscribing to the Times and justifying their opinions with what is written on its pages? I think not, sir, though you may find them watching Fox. The Times could write a thousand opinion columns to their decent readers, warning that Republicans aspire to quash protests with the military; their combined weight would be as nothing compared to the Republican himself telling you in his own words, putting to rest the possibility of doubt.
julianeon 6y ago
Just a hunch but the overlap between the group that abhorred the Cotton editorial and the group that is against doxxing is probably pretty small. I understand you are in it, but not many people are, I would wager.

fullshark 6y ago

I think that decision was worse than a sign that they have given in to market forces. They have given in to internal activists who have no desire to learn, think, or report the truth, merely use the paper as a weapon for social change.

nickthemagicman 6y ago
That's Matt Taiabbis proposition too. https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-itself https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-i...
- rendall 6y ago
  Awesome! Another reader of Taibbi's. By the way, the Post Gazette seems to have stolen that article, so maybe don't drive business their way. https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1274747185507246081?s=20 https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1274747185507246081?s=20 Instead, here is Taibbi's substack. If you're off a mind, a subscription is only $40 per year, but the stolen article is nevertheless free. https://taibbi.substack.com/ https://taibbi.substack.com/
  - nickthemagicman 6y ago
    Hey thanks! I just grabbed from the first google link. That's SUPER messed up. I hope he sues. Will update. Love Taibbi!
- tomjakubowski 6y ago
  A response: https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/taibbi-cotton-free-speech/ https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/taibbi-cotton-fre...
  - nickthemagicman 6y ago
    Interesting and good point. I could see how people could think that it's good idea to censor violent extremist viewpoints. I tend towards Taibbi's interpretation of publishing anything because I would rather err on the side of releasing dangerous info and let people decide for themselves, than having a media police that police what we read.
at-fates-hands 6y ago
> They have given in to internal activists who have no desire to learn, think, or report the truth. I am shocked and saddened this is where we are as a society. Literally one man's opinion distressed so many people, in such a way, they felt the need to raise an army and then descend on their employer and demand they remove, recant and say it will never happen again? We have arrived at a time in place where you cannot have your own opinion without fear of the rage mob coming after you. “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” George Orwell -1984
- evgen 6y ago
  That man was a United States Senator who suggested using the military to suppress political dissent. The suggestion that this is some minor newspeak squabble or a brief outbreak of political correctness grossly underplays how dangerous this suggestion was and the seeing you try to use Orwell to support your point is even more ridiculous.
  - happythomist 6y ago
    Actually, the op-ed states: > Some elites have excused this orgy of violence in the spirit of radical chic, calling it an understandable response to the wrongful death of George Floyd. Those excuses are built on a revolting moral equivalence of rioters and looters to peaceful, law-abiding protesters. A majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants. But the rioting has nothing to do with George Floyd, whose bereaved relatives have condemned violence. Setting aside whether using the Insurrection Act to respond to rioting and looting is an appropriate response, it is quite clear that Tom Cotton is not advocating the use of the the military to "suppress political dissent", which would obviously violate the First Amendment.
    - philwelch 6y ago

fennecfoxen 6y ago

Traditionally, newspapers' Opinion and Editorial sections have solicited contributions from major political figures. The Wall Street Journal, for instance, has run the following: "The Change We Need" (by Barack Obama) "A Partisan Impeachment, a Profile in Courage" (by Mike Pence) "I Can Defeat Trump and the Clinton Doctrine" (by Tulsi Gabbard) "Blame the Fed for the Financial Crisis" (by Ron Paul) "How Short-Termism Saps the Economy" (by Joe Biden) "Why I Support the Ryan Roadmap" (by Sarah Palin) "Why Americans Are So Angry" and "Trump Is the Worst Kind of Socialist" (by Bernie Sanders) "Companies Shouldn’t Be Accountable Only to Shareholders" (by Elizabeth Warren) Readers of the Journal typically value these pieces as the newsworthy opinions of important figures, even if they disagree with the authors and the politics therein quite vehemently. Very few readers would mistake these pieces' publication for an endorsement, or for depraved and wanton profit-seeking. Rather, publication of these opinions is itself a form of journalism. Readers of the Times today, however, seem to expect that the ethics of the Times ought to be driven by the Times waging total war on their common political enemies, and that to do otherwise is an offense against decency. The Times does a good job of waging such a war in the general case, sometimes quite laudably; when it does make its exceptions, however, allowing things like the Cotton editorial, it has generally been in the service of Journalism as well, communicating the newsworthy opinions of important figures. You should not fear, my erstwhile Times-reading comrade! All signs indicate that the Times has capitulated, and your victory over the forces of Journalism has been secured. (edit: Added the Bernie Sanders and Warren editorials to the list)

gesticulator 6y ago
This is stunning false equivalence. None of the opinions you offered are similar to Tom Cotton’s apologia for “sending in the tanks”. The NYT Opinions section is still, for better or worse, still quite diverse in its opinions. Ross Douthat and David Brooks are not leaving anytime soon.
- fennecfoxen 6y ago
  > None of the opinions you offered are similar to Tom Cotton’s apologia for “sending in the tanks” What makes this matter? Precisely, why? Does not the radical character of this editorial highlight, as starkly as ever, that this is grossly at odds with the official opinion of the Grey Lady? Do you somehow impute a net persuasive power to its appearance in those pages? Do you therefore believe the publication presents an increased risk that such a scheme will be carried out? How? Do you perhaps believe that many dangerous racists will find themselves emboldened by its publication, as if racists with a military-police fetish were notorious for subscribing to the Times and justifying their opinions with what is written on its pages? I think not, sir, though you may find them watching Fox. The Times could write a thousand opinion columns to their decent readers, warning that Republicans aspire to quash protests with the military; their combined weight would be as nothing compared to the Republican himself telling you in his own words, putting to rest the possibility of doubt.

julianeon 6y ago

Just a hunch but the overlap between the group that abhorred the Cotton editorial and the group that is against doxxing is probably pretty small. I understand you are in it, but not many people are, I would wager.