4 ms·

> race-baiting propaganda I think it’s reasonable to debate the quality of the NYT (and I have serious issues with a lot of what they publish - and dear lord,

> race-baiting propaganda I think it’s reasonable to debate the quality of the NYT (and I have serious issues with a lot of what they publish - and dear lord, don’t get me started on how I feel about their opinion columnists). But I do think that calling the NYT “race-baiting propaganda” is a gross mischaracterization of what they do.

bra-ket 6y ago
that's exactly what they do though. The entire 'systemic racism' story is complete and utter bullshit and it's been on the NYT front page for the entire summer of BLM riots. It's just another left wing propaganda machine just like WaPo and CNN. They use 'white supremacy' conspiracy to scare people into voting for whoever they want. And if you disagree with them you're automatically 'racist'.
- drewbug01 6y ago
  I believe that systemic racism exists; and frankly from where I sit it’s not particularly hard to see it. The NYT, Washington Post, and CNN are not widely held to be “left-wing propaganda machines.” That is not a majority opinion in the US, or in the world at large. Your comment saddens me, because I feel an anger and fear in your words, and I wish I could help somehow. All I can say is that what you are alleging is simply untrue, and not supported by facts. It is opinion at best. Please know that the whole world doesn’t hate you, and just because a publication writes words that do not align with your beliefs it does not make them a “propaganda machine.” I cannot meet you further in the middle than this, because I cannot accept conspiracy theories as truth. But I am here to talk if you want to step away from that darkness.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
Rebelgecko 6y ago
It's a bit melodramatic to characterize their primary output as race-baiting propaganda However I think it's interesting to compare and contrast how they handled Andrew Sullivan's racist comments from 26 years ago, Sarah Jeong's racist comments from 5-8 years ago, and Quinn Norton's use of slurs around 8 years ago.
- muglug 6y ago
  I think context is quite important. Andrew Sullivan is notorious for believing in some version of The Bell Curve theory — that differences in academic achievement can be at least partly explained by measurable differences in average intelligence between different races. He promoted that view in his role as editor of a major news magazine in the early 90s. That sets him apart from Quinn Norton, who nevertheless used some racial slurs on early internet message boards. I think her article discussing her friendship with a neo-Nazi was more damaging, though. FWIW I think The Times overreacted there. Sarah Jeong made some bad taste jokes at white people’s expense while being harassed by actual racist trolls. Only the truly cynical would call those tweets racist, when viewed in context.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Rebelgecko 6y ago
    I think it's also interesting that (at least in part) Norton's firing was due to using a slur that refers to a group for which she belongs. Imagine if there was a similar cancellation when Barack Obama used the n word on Marc Maron's podcast. She was also pretty upfront about the moral conflict of befriending a person like weev who she considered despicable. I dont think Sarah Jeong actually wants to follow through with her violent racist tweets, but I also don't think that Norton actually hates LGBT people or non-whites. It seems like a double standard to me. wrt Sullivan, the NYT was still happy to publish Professor David Reich's op-ed in 2018 which cautiously espoused the same controversial ideas. Even HN's beloved Scott Alexander wrote a Slatestarcodex article about how some aspects of intelligence might be inheritable.
nailer 6y ago
> NYT “race-baiting propaganda” is a gross mischaracterization of what they do. Sorry this study is in French. But yes, the NYT has shifted much further left in recent years. http://evoweb.net/blog2/20190630-islamophobia-nyt-timelines.htm http://evoweb.net/blog2/20190630-islamophobia-nyt-timelines....

bra-ket 6y ago

that's exactly what they do though. The entire 'systemic racism' story is complete and utter bullshit and it's been on the NYT front page for the entire summer of BLM riots. It's just another left wing propaganda machine just like WaPo and CNN. They use 'white supremacy' conspiracy to scare people into voting for whoever they want. And if you disagree with them you're automatically 'racist'.

drewbug01 6y ago
I believe that systemic racism exists; and frankly from where I sit it’s not particularly hard to see it. The NYT, Washington Post, and CNN are not widely held to be “left-wing propaganda machines.” That is not a majority opinion in the US, or in the world at large. Your comment saddens me, because I feel an anger and fear in your words, and I wish I could help somehow. All I can say is that what you are alleging is simply untrue, and not supported by facts. It is opinion at best. Please know that the whole world doesn’t hate you, and just because a publication writes words that do not align with your beliefs it does not make them a “propaganda machine.” I cannot meet you further in the middle than this, because I cannot accept conspiracy theories as truth. But I am here to talk if you want to step away from that darkness.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

Rebelgecko 6y ago

It's a bit melodramatic to characterize their primary output as race-baiting propaganda However I think it's interesting to compare and contrast how they handled Andrew Sullivan's racist comments from 26 years ago, Sarah Jeong's racist comments from 5-8 years ago, and Quinn Norton's use of slurs around 8 years ago.

muglug 6y ago
I think context is quite important. Andrew Sullivan is notorious for believing in some version of The Bell Curve theory — that differences in academic achievement can be at least partly explained by measurable differences in average intelligence between different races. He promoted that view in his role as editor of a major news magazine in the early 90s. That sets him apart from Quinn Norton, who nevertheless used some racial slurs on early internet message boards. I think her article discussing her friendship with a neo-Nazi was more damaging, though. FWIW I think The Times overreacted there. Sarah Jeong made some bad taste jokes at white people’s expense while being harassed by actual racist trolls. Only the truly cynical would call those tweets racist, when viewed in context.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Rebelgecko 6y ago
  I think it's also interesting that (at least in part) Norton's firing was due to using a slur that refers to a group for which she belongs. Imagine if there was a similar cancellation when Barack Obama used the n word on Marc Maron's podcast. She was also pretty upfront about the moral conflict of befriending a person like weev who she considered despicable. I dont think Sarah Jeong actually wants to follow through with her violent racist tweets, but I also don't think that Norton actually hates LGBT people or non-whites. It seems like a double standard to me. wrt Sullivan, the NYT was still happy to publish Professor David Reich's op-ed in 2018 which cautiously espoused the same controversial ideas. Even HN's beloved Scott Alexander wrote a Slatestarcodex article about how some aspects of intelligence might be inheritable.

nailer 6y ago

> NYT “race-baiting propaganda” is a gross mischaracterization of what they do. Sorry this study is in French. But yes, the NYT has shifted much further left in recent years. http://evoweb.net/blog2/20190630-islamophobia-nyt-timelines.htm http://evoweb.net/blog2/20190630-islamophobia-nyt-timelines....