5 ms·
After the SSC debacle, NYT is likely to learn itself a thing or two about boycotts.
by donw 6y ago
After the SSC debacle, NYT is likely to learn itself a thing or two about boycotts.
- intsunny 6y agoIf we punish respected organizations (of any kind) for every gaffe, we would not have any left. In an era where the journalists are more under attack than ever, we might want to remember it is easier to tear things down than build them up.
- throwaway_1512 6y agoThese are not journalists, mostly blogger and quite likely just twitter addicts.
- bzb3 6y agoNobody has talked about punishing respected organisations, just the New York Times.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- WillPostForFood 6y agoA “gaffe” is an unintentional mistake - oops, silly me. The New York Times outing people isn’t a gaffe, it is a hit job.
- Veen 6y agoWhat about gaffes like the 1619 Project, the shortcomings and errors of which the NYT steadfastly refused to correct in the face of criticisms from historians. At a certain point, when the gaffes all line up in one direction, one might reasonably suspect an underlying motive.
- ciarannolan 6y agoWhat were some of the issues with the 1619 Project?
- solarwind 6y agoThe main thesis of the 1619 project was that the colonists decided to declare their independence from Britain because they wanted to protect the institution of slavery. This is categorically false according to actual historians, and so the NYT had to issue a correction (some 7 months later). None of the leading scholars of the whole period from the Revolution to the Civil War were consulted on the project, yet now it is being taught in some public schools
- Veen 6y ago> yet now it is being taught in some public schools That's the real problem. Newspapers get things wrong all the time. There's a conversation, people put forth their views pro and anti, and everyone makes up their own mind. But making a newspaper story that has come under fire from a huge number of respectable scholars part of the school curriculum for children is nakedly ideological.
- catalogia 6y agoI think/hope everybody recognizes that mistakes happen. In this particular case I think it goes beyond a mere mistake. Some points to consider: The 1619 Project refers not merely to "a newspaper story". Originally it was 100 page magazine with ten essays, a variety of poems and stories, etc. It has since become an ongoing multimedia project. Secondly, as mentioned above, the NYTs has not been particularly responsive to criticism from actual historians.
- cmdshiftf4 6y ago> In this particular case I think it goes beyond a mere mistake. I think that supports another point made above: >At a certain point, when the gaffes all line up in one direction, one might reasonably suspect an underlying motive. The NYT seems to be beyond "gaffes" at this point, and be entirely focused on promoting their ideology.
- ciarannolan 6y ago
- greatwhitenorth 6y agoHow is NYTimes different than any for-profit business? They write what they write to get eyeballs. Just because they say "news media" doesn't mean they write truth. Some journalists may be under attack because they write lies and half-truths. Of course, they will portray it as the whole press is under attack.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ashtonbaker 6y agoI don't think this will be widely heard-about.
- evgen 6y agoSince absolutely no one, in either numbers or social importance, knows about or cares about “the SSC debacle” and none of those who do are likely to be subscribers the NYT is unlikely to be concerned.
- ReptileMan 6y agoI don't know ... gawker pissed off the whole world and got away with it. It needed just one tiny Peter Thiel to bring them down burning ... If some billionaire gets pissed off at woke organizations and outlets they could inflict substantial damage.
- joubert 6y agoDo you have a take on which companies or maybe kinds of companies that are likely to boycott the NYT over that?