7 ms·
> 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.
by jakelazaroff 6y ago
> 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, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you’ll be hung out to dry.
It is supremely ironic for a famous writer, employed for years at America's paper of record, to complain about being silenced by her critics in a resignation letter that will be shared far and wide and read by tens — if not hundreds — of thousands of people.
- ReptileMan 6y agoWell the Tom Cotton op ed drama was literally this.
- jakelazaroff 6y agoTom Cotton is a sitting US Senator. Denying him op–ed space is in no way tantamount to "silencing" him.
- jeffbee 6y agoAlso they didn't deny him anything. His idiotic vomit ran above the fold online. The Times admitted the opinion editor didn't even read the piece, they just ran it automatically out of deference to the senator.
- PhineasRex 6y agoAlso worth noting that Bennett actually reached out to Cotton to write the piece
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 6y agoAnd Bennett lost his position because of it.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y agobecause of the article? Or because the entire process for handling it failed to meet NYT process standards for op-eds, and because Bennett himself was at best misleading and at worse lying about his own role and behavior in that process?
- ponker 6y agoThere are 100 Senators, chosen by the same types of processes that put Donald Trump in the White House, why is being a Senator an automatic qualification for publishing in the NYT? Such a famous newspaper should be more exclusive than that.
- krrrh 6y agoNeither was publishing it an endorsement. Nor was it an endorsement when they published an editorial from an ISIS leader or going back some ways, Hitler. It’s important to know what politicians think. He could have easily Had it published in the Federalist or Breitbart, but the average nytimes reader would never have had the opportunity to read it. Filter bubbles are a big problem, and getting Cotton on record in the paper of record is a valuable service.
- ReptileMan 6y agoThe editor was fired
- seibelj 6y agoThis is the latest argument from people who claim cancel culture doesn't exist. "How are you being silenced when everyone will read it from your high perch?" High-level writers need to push back against illiberal and anti-free speech proponents to give cover for the lower ranks. If even the top tier writers can't speak their mind, does the lowly intern or new hire stand a chance?
- deleuze 6y agoI'll start caring more about this "silencing" once the NYT editorial board starts including viewpoints that are actually silenced in our society. Until then, it's just whining about no longer being free from criticism.
- seibelj 6y agoThe "I concede you may be right but I simply don't care" argument, a form of "what-about-ism". It's possible to believe in free speech and want to promote marginalized voices simultaneously. You don't need to silence disagreement.
- jimbokun 6y agoWhat viewpoints? Are we just supposed to guess, or automatically know which viewpoints you mean?
- orwin 6y agoCommunism division of work, central planning for college-level education? Worker cooperative can be more efficient than traditional company in some sectors, did you ever read any piece on that? I mean, the two time i went in the US, i was in really liberal and even socialist environment, and very few seems to even have heard of worker cooperative, so it would be surprising, but HN always surprise me positively, so why not.
- jimbokun 6y agoThis google search brings up several pieces from nytimes.com: "worker cooperatives site:nytimes.com"
- wait_a_minute 6y agoThere is a lot of space in-between complete censorship and freedom to be curious. If we were already at complete censorship, she would have been silenced already. Issuing a warning about the trend while we're on the ride towards censorship does not mean there is no trend. That is what she is doing here. She is raising the alarm. If we had to wait to hear an alarm until silencing was the only possibility, there wouldn't be an alarm anymore.
- koheripbal 6y agoIt seems like we're a lot further along the road than that - though perhaps not at the end of it - since this type of behavior is wide-spread.
- manfredo 6y agoI don't think this statement is primary about Weiss herself. Rather, less established writers are the ones that are most constrained by this environment.
- jimbokun 6y agoShe is not making this plea for her own benefit, but for those who don’t have her same level of privilege.
- dcolkitt 6y agoThere's a fantastic Slate Star Codex essay (which unfortunately I can't ironically link to, because that blog was cancelled by the New York Times) about the very point you raise. Basically anytime someone famous and successful comes out against cancel culture, the standard rejoinder is it can't be so bad. Doesn't seem to have stopped your career, so why are you whining? And the point is for every high-profile person criticizing cancel culture, there's a vast dark matter of nobodies who's lives and careers have been ruined. Nobody's reading there op-eds. Things are that bad for Bari Weiss, practically a household name, and not even that conservative relative to the median American. Now imagine being an entry-level associate reporter, and a self-identified Republican.
- joly_ 6y agoI think the article is "CAN THINGS BE BOTH POPULAR AND SILENCED?", archive link https://perma.cc/9XBH-VQT9 https://perma.cc/9XBH-VQT9
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- edanm 6y agoI love that article and am a huge fan of Slate Star Codex. But to be clear - it wasn't "canceled" by the NYT, at least not in the way the term canceled is commonly used nowadays. He made the decision to take the blog offline because the NYT decided to dox him, but their purpose wasn't (as far as we know) for that to happen.
- dane-pgp 6y agoI'm reminded of this Russell Brand quote, which points out a similar Catch-22: “When I was poor and complained about inequality they said I was bitter; now that I'm rich and I complain about inequality they say I'm a hypocrite. I'm beginning to think they just don't want to talk about inequality.”
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- nailer 6y ago> a resignation letter that will be shared far and wide and read by tens — if not hundreds — of thousands of people. But not in the NY times, where she seems to have been illegally harassed. I'm pretty sure you understand this.