ADVERTISEMENT

The "Failing" New York Times?

JamieDimonsBalls

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Jun 28, 2015
16,271
16,962
113
Opinion Editor Bari Weiss just resigned with a scathing slam at the paper.

https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter

Selected text:

I joined the paper with gratitude and optimism three years ago. I was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of The Times as their home. The reason for this effort was clear: The paper’s failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn’t have a firm grasp of the country it covers. Dean Baquet and others have admitted as much on various occasions. The priority in Opinion was to help redress that critical shortcoming.
...
But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.
...
Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.

...
I do not understand how you have allowed this kind of behavior to go on inside your company in full view of the paper’s entire staff and the public. And I certainly can’t square how you and other Times leaders have stood by while simultaneously praising me in private for my courage. Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery.
...
Part of me wishes I could say that my experience was unique. But the truth is that intellectual curiosity—let alone risk-taking—is now a liability at The Times. Why edit something challenging to our readers, or write something bold only to go through the numbing process of making it ideologically kosher, when we can assure ourselves of job security (and clicks) by publishing our 4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world? And so self-censorship has become the norm.




Dear A.G.,

It is with sadness that I write to tell you that I am resigning from The New York Times.

I joined the paper with gratitude and optimism three years ago. I was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of The Times as their home. The reason for this effort was clear: The paper’s failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn’t have a firm grasp of the country it covers. Dean Baquet and others have admitted as much on various occasions. The priority in Opinion was to help redress that critical shortcoming.

I was honored to be part of that effort, led by James Bennet. I am proud of my work as a writer and as an editor. Among those I helped bring to our pages: the Venezuelan dissident Wuilly Arteaga; the Iranian chess champion Dorsa Derakhshani; and the Hong Kong Christian democrat Derek Lam. Also: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Masih Alinejad, Zaina Arafat, Elna Baker, Rachael Denhollander, Matti Friedman, Nick Gillespie, Heather Heying, Randall Kennedy, Julius Krein, Monica Lewinsky, Glenn Loury, Jesse Singal, Ali Soufan, Chloe Valdary, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Wesley Yang, and many others.

But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.

Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.

My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.

There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong.

I do not understand how you have allowed this kind of behavior to go on inside your company in full view of the paper’s entire staff and the public. And I certainly can’t square how you and other Times leaders have stood by while simultaneously praising me in private for my courage. Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery.

Part of me wishes I could say that my experience was unique. But the truth is that intellectual curiosity—let alone risk-taking—is now a liability at The Times. Why edit something challenging to our readers, or write something bold only to go through the numbing process of making it ideologically kosher, when we can assure ourselves of job security (and clicks) by publishing our 4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world? And so self-censorship has become the norm.

What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets.

Op-eds that would have easily been published just two years ago would now get an editor or a writer in serious trouble, if not fired. If a piece is perceived as likely to inspire backlash internally or on social media, the editor or writer avoids pitching it. If she feels strongly enough to suggest it, she is quickly steered to safer ground. And if, every now and then, she succeeds in getting a piece published that does not explicitly promote progressive causes, it happens only after every line is carefully massaged, negotiated and caveated.

It took the paper two days and two jobs to say that the Tom Cotton op-ed “fell short of our standards.” We attached an editor’s note on a travel story about Jaffa shortly after it was published because it “failed to touch on important aspects of Jaffa’s makeup and its history.” But there is still none appended to Cheryl Strayed’s fawning interview with the writer Alice Walker, a proud anti-Semite who believes in lizard Illuminati.

The paper of record is, more and more, the record of those living in a distant galaxy, one whose concerns are profoundly removed from the lives of most people. This is a galaxy in which, to choose just a few recent examples, the Soviet space program is lauded for its “diversity”; the doxxing of teenagers in the name of justice is condoned; and the worst caste systems in human history includes the United States alongside Nazi Germany.

Even now, I am confident that most people at The Times do not hold these views. Yet they are cowed by those who do. Why? Perhaps because they believe the ultimate goal is righteous. Perhaps because they believe that they will be granted protection if they nod along as the coin of our realm—language—is degraded in service to an ever-shifting laundry list of right causes. Perhaps because there are millions of unemployed people in this country and they feel lucky to have a job in a contracting industry.

Or perhaps it is because they know that, nowadays, standing up for principle at the paper does not win plaudits. It puts a target on your back. Too wise to post on Slack, they write to me privately about the “new McCarthyism” that has taken root at the paper of record.

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.

For these young writers and editors, there is one consolation. As places like The Times and other once-great journalistic institutions betray their standards and lose sight of their principles, Americans still hunger for news that is accurate, opinions that are vital, and debate that is sincere. I hear from these people every day. “An independent press is not a liberal ideal or a progressive ideal or a democratic ideal. It’s an American ideal,” you said a few years ago. I couldn’t agree more. America is a great country that deserves a great newspaper.

None of this means that some of the most talented journalists in the world don’t still labor for this newspaper. They do, which is what makes the illiberal environment especially heartbreaking. I will be, as ever, a dedicated reader of their work. But I can no longer do the work that you brought me here to do—the work that Adolph Ochs described in that famous 1896 statement: “to make of the columns of The New York Times a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to that end to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.”

Ochs’s idea is one of the best I’ve encountered. And I’ve always comforted myself with the notion that the best ideas win out. But ideas cannot win on their own. They need a voice. They need a hearing. Above all, they must be backed by people willing to live by them.

Sincerely,

Bari
 
Opinion Editor Bari Weiss just resigned with a scathing slam at the paper.

https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter

Selected text:

I joined the paper with gratitude and optimism three years ago. I was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of The Times as their home. The reason for this effort was clear: The paper’s failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn’t have a firm grasp of the country it covers. Dean Baquet and others have admitted as much on various occasions. The priority in Opinion was to help redress that critical shortcoming.
...
But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.
...
Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.

...
I do not understand how you have allowed this kind of behavior to go on inside your company in full view of the paper’s entire staff and the public. And I certainly can’t square how you and other Times leaders have stood by while simultaneously praising me in private for my courage. Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery.
...
Part of me wishes I could say that my experience was unique. But the truth is that intellectual curiosity—let alone risk-taking—is now a liability at The Times. Why edit something challenging to our readers, or write something bold only to go through the numbing process of making it ideologically kosher, when we can assure ourselves of job security (and clicks) by publishing our 4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world? And so self-censorship has become the norm.




Dear A.G.,

It is with sadness that I write to tell you that I am resigning from The New York Times.

I joined the paper with gratitude and optimism three years ago. I was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of The Times as their home. The reason for this effort was clear: The paper’s failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn’t have a firm grasp of the country it covers. Dean Baquet and others have admitted as much on various occasions. The priority in Opinion was to help redress that critical shortcoming.

I was honored to be part of that effort, led by James Bennet. I am proud of my work as a writer and as an editor. Among those I helped bring to our pages: the Venezuelan dissident Wuilly Arteaga; the Iranian chess champion Dorsa Derakhshani; and the Hong Kong Christian democrat Derek Lam. Also: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Masih Alinejad, Zaina Arafat, Elna Baker, Rachael Denhollander, Matti Friedman, Nick Gillespie, Heather Heying, Randall Kennedy, Julius Krein, Monica Lewinsky, Glenn Loury, Jesse Singal, Ali Soufan, Chloe Valdary, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Wesley Yang, and many others.

But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.

Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.

My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.

There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong.

I do not understand how you have allowed this kind of behavior to go on inside your company in full view of the paper’s entire staff and the public. And I certainly can’t square how you and other Times leaders have stood by while simultaneously praising me in private for my courage. Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery.

Part of me wishes I could say that my experience was unique. But the truth is that intellectual curiosity—let alone risk-taking—is now a liability at The Times. Why edit something challenging to our readers, or write something bold only to go through the numbing process of making it ideologically kosher, when we can assure ourselves of job security (and clicks) by publishing our 4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world? And so self-censorship has become the norm.

What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets.

Op-eds that would have easily been published just two years ago would now get an editor or a writer in serious trouble, if not fired. If a piece is perceived as likely to inspire backlash internally or on social media, the editor or writer avoids pitching it. If she feels strongly enough to suggest it, she is quickly steered to safer ground. And if, every now and then, she succeeds in getting a piece published that does not explicitly promote progressive causes, it happens only after every line is carefully massaged, negotiated and caveated.

It took the paper two days and two jobs to say that the Tom Cotton op-ed “fell short of our standards.” We attached an editor’s note on a travel story about Jaffa shortly after it was published because it “failed to touch on important aspects of Jaffa’s makeup and its history.” But there is still none appended to Cheryl Strayed’s fawning interview with the writer Alice Walker, a proud anti-Semite who believes in lizard Illuminati.

The paper of record is, more and more, the record of those living in a distant galaxy, one whose concerns are profoundly removed from the lives of most people. This is a galaxy in which, to choose just a few recent examples, the Soviet space program is lauded for its “diversity”; the doxxing of teenagers in the name of justice is condoned; and the worst caste systems in human history includes the United States alongside Nazi Germany.

Even now, I am confident that most people at The Times do not hold these views. Yet they are cowed by those who do. Why? Perhaps because they believe the ultimate goal is righteous. Perhaps because they believe that they will be granted protection if they nod along as the coin of our realm—language—is degraded in service to an ever-shifting laundry list of right causes. Perhaps because there are millions of unemployed people in this country and they feel lucky to have a job in a contracting industry.

Or perhaps it is because they know that, nowadays, standing up for principle at the paper does not win plaudits. It puts a target on your back. Too wise to post on Slack, they write to me privately about the “new McCarthyism” that has taken root at the paper of record.

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.

For these young writers and editors, there is one consolation. As places like The Times and other once-great journalistic institutions betray their standards and lose sight of their principles, Americans still hunger for news that is accurate, opinions that are vital, and debate that is sincere. I hear from these people every day. “An independent press is not a liberal ideal or a progressive ideal or a democratic ideal. It’s an American ideal,” you said a few years ago. I couldn’t agree more. America is a great country that deserves a great newspaper.

None of this means that some of the most talented journalists in the world don’t still labor for this newspaper. They do, which is what makes the illiberal environment especially heartbreaking. I will be, as ever, a dedicated reader of their work. But I can no longer do the work that you brought me here to do—the work that Adolph Ochs described in that famous 1896 statement: “to make of the columns of The New York Times a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to that end to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.”

Ochs’s idea is one of the best I’ve encountered. And I’ve always comforted myself with the notion that the best ideas win out. But ideas cannot win on their own. They need a voice. They need a hearing. Above all, they must be backed by people willing to live by them.

Sincerely,

Bari
It’s a goddamned shame that she’s leaving. I wish she’d stuck around and fought it out. But what she’s talking about experiencing is exactly what I’m diatribing (is that a word?) in the “Elanor” thread. One simply cannot have ideas outside what the newly woke insist is the only way to think and if you do, you’re a bigot / homophone / misogynist. How on earth do these drones at the NYT expect to learn about our people and their stories by writing them off immediately because they will not wear the ribbon (to borrow from @Thyrsis)?
 
It’s a goddamned shame that she’s leaving. I wish she’d stuck around and fought it out. But what she’s talking about experiencing is exactly what I’m diatribing (is that a word?) in the “Elanor” thread. One simply cannot have ideas outside what the newly woke insist is the only way to think and if you do, you’re a bigot / homophone / misogynist. How on earth do these drones at the NYT expect to learn about our people and their stories by writing them off immediately because they will not wear the ribbon (to borrow from @Thyrsis)?

It's insane. Her efforts and cause were quite noble. It demonstrates a fundamental disconnect between how media is functioning and how it needs to function in order for society to be more understanding, more cohesive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 76-1 and mcmurtry66
It's insane. Her efforts and cause were quite noble. It demonstrates a fundamental disconnect between how media is functioning and how it needs to function in order for society to be more understanding, more cohesive.

The New York Times, and all major media outlets, have a vested interest in keeping us terrified, divided, angry, misinformed, confused and bewildered.

Journalism is no longer a respectable profession and has replaced personal injury lawyers at the bottom of the scum barrel.

To pretend like these people are somehow noble, save maybe a few, is laughable. For them to intentionally drive wedges through different sectors of society and then complain when they are attacked is laughable. See trump supporters attacking CNN journos and BLM supporters attacking Fox journos. You get precisely what you ask for. I have zero sympathy for them and hope a few get killed, maybe that’ll send a message that what they are doing isn’t cool. Lord knows their tactics have cost more than a handful of lives in this country. No sympathy for these ivory tower pussies
 
It's insane. Her efforts and cause were quite noble. It demonstrates a fundamental disconnect between how media is functioning and how it needs to function in order for society to be more understanding, more cohesive.

Your idealism is admirable, but the "fair and balanced" approach is obsolete. News providers need to find their niche and fill it better than their competitors.
 
Too many people have forgotten the difference between editorial opinon and news reporting, with each being clearly marked as such.

Good papers will do both
 
  • Like
Reactions: brianiu
Your idealism is admirable, but the "fair and balanced" approach is obsolete. News providers need to find their niche and fill it better than their competitors.


You might be right, that it’s obsolete. Yet I still hope to be reading something that attempts to be fair and balanced. Call me crazy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bawlmer
The New York Times, and all major media outlets, have a vested interest in keeping us terrified, divided, angry, misinformed, confused and bewildered.

Journalism is no longer a respectable profession and has replaced personal injury lawyers at the bottom of the scum barrel.

To pretend like these people are somehow noble, save maybe a few, is laughable. For them to intentionally drive wedges through different sectors of society and then complain when they are attacked is laughable. See trump supporters attacking CNN journos and BLM supporters attacking Fox journos. You get precisely what you ask for. I have zero sympathy for them and hope a few get killed, maybe that’ll send a message that what they are doing isn’t cool. Lord knows their tactics have cost more than a handful of lives in this country. No sympathy for these ivory tower pussies

A)That escalated quickly.
B)Anybody who is hopeful of holding this experiment together cannot hope for that. Political violence is bad for everyone.
 
It’s a goddamned shame that she’s leaving. I wish she’d stuck around and fought it out. But what she’s talking about experiencing is exactly what I’m diatribing (is that a word?) in the “Elanor” thread. One simply cannot have ideas outside what the newly woke insist is the only way to think and if you do, you’re a bigot / homophone / misogynist. How on earth do these drones at the NYT expect to learn about our people and their stories by writing them off immediately because they will not wear the ribbon (to borrow from @Thyrsis)?
I don't know enough to weigh in aggressively, but a few things cross my mind here. First, it's not as though the NYT has recently been the consistent darling of "informed liberals". Indeed, Dean Baquet has consistently been taken to task of late by people outside the NYT for his "even-handed" decisions, including giving Tom Cotton a platform on the Op-Ed pages. Second, Weiss didn't really give a lot of specifics about actual NYT failures, she didn't acknowledge the "balance" tendencies of the NYT that undercut (to a degree, maybe small) some of her positioning, we don't know how hard she tried to address any concerns internally (quitting with a loud parting shot's pretty easy), and she doesn't meaningfully acknowledge any of her own missteps. Third, many of the most avid cites to Weiss' resignation letter come from people who hate the NYT and all it stands for (including a free and independent press).

I don't follow Weiss closely. Sounds like it's unfortunate she's leaving. But I'm not ready to throw away the NYT (and I'm not sure the NYT is really the best target for anti-"cancel culture" criticisms). WSJ, WaPo and NYT are vital and valuable pieces. We should push them to do better; based on a review of twitter, the folks most vehemently backing Weiss don't want that. They want the NYT to go away entirely (along with liberal judges, broad-based voting, #blm, public education, etc.). Many of them really don't support traditional American republic ideals at all. That doesn't make the NYT right, but I'm wary of reveling in common ground with people who don't clearly believe in those ideals and who are instead propping some of the worst authoritarian impulses I've ever seen.
 
We'll see how long it takes the Times to fill her role. I doubt it will be long.
 
She obviously lacks conviction and willpower by allowing peer pressure to dictate her actions.

I don't like cancel culture and if I can't write what I want, without my peers picking on me, I'm taking my ball home and cancelling myself.

Weak ... and a hypocrite.
 
Last edited:
You might be right, that it’s obsolete. Yet I still hope to be reading something that attempts to be fair and balanced. Call me crazy.

Most people don't consume news the way they used to.

I'm an old fart, so I grew up getting the newspaper from the driveway every morning, and what it told me (along with occasionally watching network TV news) is what I knew about the world.

Now I'm on the internet before I even get out of bed. I usually go to CNN, which will show me, at a quick glimpse, what the biggest stories are...depending on the subject matter of the big stories, I jump to different sites...Washington Post, ESPN, etc. Once I learn the basic facts, I'm off to a bunch of different sites for more detail and opinions.
For IU basketball and ND football I go to Rivals. For the Colts or Pacers I Google "Colts" or "Pacers" and go to whatever looks interesting on Google's News tab. Often that's IndyStar or The Athletic.

If I wanted right-wing opinions on politics (I don't), I'd (theoretically) go to a right-wing site....NOT the NYT.

For local news I hit my local newspaper and a couple TV station sites.

The bottom line is that I'm vastly better informed than I was in the paper news days.
 
  • Like
Reactions: travlinhoosier
Most people don't consume news the way they used to.

I'm an old fart, so I grew up getting the newspaper from the driveway every morning, and what it told me (along with occasionally watching network TV news) is what I knew about the world.

Now I'm on the internet before I even get out of bed. I usually go to CNN, which will show me, at a quick glimpse, what the biggest stories are...depending on the subject matter of the big stories, I jump to different sites...Washington Post, ESPN, etc. Once I learn the basic facts, I'm off to a bunch of different sites for more detail and opinions.
For IU basketball and ND football I go to Rivals. For the Colts or Pacers I Google "Colts" or "Pacers" and go to whatever looks interesting on Google's News tab. Often that's IndyStar or The Athletic.

If I wanted right-wing opinions on politics (I don't), I'd (theoretically) go to a right-wing site....NOT the NYT.

For local news I hit my local newspaper and a couple TV station sites.

The bottom line is that I'm vastly better informed than I was in the paper news days.
You had me until you mentioned the IU basketball/ND football combination.
I just don’t get it.
 
You had me until you mentioned the IU basketball/ND football combination.
I just don’t get it.
He's a cafeteria fan.

I'll have THAT, and some of THAT, and then THAT too.

Oh, you are probably going to grill me on my avatar and about how Patriots don't fit in with IU, Pacers, and Reds. By the time the state of Indiana had an NFL team, I was an adult and already an NFL fan. I decided not to abandon my team, though they were exceptionally mediocre for quite a long time.
 
He's a cafeteria fan.

I'll have THAT, and some of THAT, and then THAT too.

Oh, you are probably going to grill me on my avatar and about how Patriots don't fit in with IU, Pacers, and Reds. By the time the state of Indiana had an NFL team, I was an adult and already an NFL fan. I decided not to abandon my team, though they were exceptionally mediocre for quite a long time.
Nope. Go Hoosiers.
 
He's a cafeteria fan.

I'll have THAT, and some of THAT, and then THAT too.

Oh, you are probably going to grill me on my avatar and about how Patriots don't fit in with IU, Pacers, and Reds. By the time the state of Indiana had an NFL team, I was an adult and already an NFL fan. I decided not to abandon my team, though they were exceptionally mediocre for quite a long time.

You have no clue what exceptionally mediocre is,

Bengals fan
 
Most people don't consume news the way they used to.

I'm an old fart, so I grew up getting the newspaper from the driveway every morning, and what it told me (along with occasionally watching network TV news) is what I knew about the world.

Now I'm on the internet before I even get out of bed. I usually go to CNN, which will show me, at a quick glimpse, what the biggest stories are...depending on the subject matter of the big stories, I jump to different sites...Washington Post, ESPN, etc. Once I learn the basic facts, I'm off to a bunch of different sites for more detail and opinions.
For IU basketball and ND football I go to Rivals. For the Colts or Pacers I Google "Colts" or "Pacers" and go to whatever looks interesting on Google's News tab. Often that's IndyStar or The Athletic.

If I wanted right-wing opinions on politics (I don't), I'd (theoretically) go to a right-wing site....NOT the NYT.

For local news I hit my local newspaper and a couple TV station sites.

The bottom line is that I'm vastly better informed than I was in the paper news days.
I check out Fox News from time to time just to gauge where the idiots in my life stand, and they have had no mention of Covid on their front page recently which is odd considering it’s the number one story in the world. Bizarre times
 
You had me until you mentioned the IU basketball/ND football combination.
I just don’t get it.

I'm an IU grad, born, raised, and currently live in Michiana. No f**cks will be given!

I went to a lot of games at IU, but I can only remember one play. Ohio State kicked off after a TD. The kick was short and hit the ground around the 25 yard line. The IU blockers stood around, watching the ball roll and being super careful not to touch it... as if it were a punt. An OSU player jogged down the field, picked up the ball, and ran into the end zone, untouched. That was IU football in a nutshell.
 
I check out Fox News from time to time just to gauge where the idiots in my life stand, and they have had no mention of Covid on their front page recently which is odd considering it’s the number one story in the world. Bizarre times

I let Right Wing Watch and Media Matters do that for me. I'm not gonna reward Fox with an additional viewer.... or put my television at risk of thrown objects.
 
I'm an IU grad, born, raised, and currently live in Michiana. No f**cks will be given!

I went to a lot of games at IU, but I can only remember one play. Ohio State kicked off after a TD. The kick was short and hit the ground around the 25 yard line. The IU blockers stood around, watching the ball roll and being super careful not to touch it... as if it were a punt. An OSU player jogged down the field, picked up the ball, and ran into the end zone, untouched. That was IU football in a nutshell.
I’ll give one.
IU
 
I check out Fox News from time to time just to gauge where the idiots in my life stand, and they have had no mention of Covid on their front page recently which is odd considering it’s the number one story in the world. Bizarre times
You have to be able to ignore it to be able to let it kill your kids.
Then it’s not your fault.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT