ADVERTISEMENT

The "Failing" New York Times?

mainway_toys said:
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.
Click to expand...
Can't advance an onside kick.
 
JamieDimonsBalls said:
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
Click to expand...

the NYT failed in realizing just how successful the state Pubs would be in throwing voters off the voter rolls, and passing last minute ID laws making it so many college students couldn't vote.

that said, i find it amusing that everyone thinks the NYT is liberal. (probably the same total idiots who think AT&T and Comcast are liberal).

race, abortion, and LGBTQ, aren't everything, though the naive seem to think that's all that defines conservative or liberal.

those running the country absolutely love those idiots.
 
outside shooter said:
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.
Click to expand...
I make no excuses. I grew up in South Bend in the 70’s and it’s hard not to become an ND football fan at that time when Ara Parseghian was coach and ND football was arguably the best college team in the country year after year. And who can blame me for being more attracted to IU basketball in the 70’s, too? Was I supposed to like Digger’s Irish over Knight’s Hoosiers?
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Harry Hondo said:
I make no excuses. I grew up in South Bend in the 70’s and it’s hard not to become an ND football fan at that time when Ara Parseghian was coach and ND football was arguably the best college team in the country year after year. And who can blame me for being more attracted to IU basketball in the 70’s, too? Was I supposed to like Digger’s Irish over Knight’s Hoosiers?
Click to expand...
I’m in same boat. Growing up in the Region we treated ND like the local football team. I am also an NDAna fan but only ND football and I’d root for IU if they ever play ND in football.

All other ND teams can piss off.
 
  • Like
Reactions: glmiu11 and JamieDimonsBalls
Harry Hondo said:
I make no excuses. I grew up in South Bend in the 70’s and it’s hard not to become an ND football fan at that time when Ara Parseghian was coach and ND football was arguably the best college team in the country year after year. And who can blame me for being more attracted to IU basketball in the 70’s, too? Was I supposed to like Digger’s Irish over Knight’s Hoosiers?
Click to expand...

INRanger27 said:
I’m in same boat. Growing up in the Region we treated ND like the local football team. I am also an NDAna fan but only ND football and I’d root for IU if they ever play ND in football.

All other ND teams can piss off.
Click to expand...

Not going to lie, I've always been critical of the ND/IU fans, but I'm starting to understand where you guys are coming from. I grew up following pro sports teams and while many Michiana guys are some combination of Chicago/Detroit/Indy fans for pro sports, a few decades back, ND was effectively the pro sports team for the people in the region. Meaning, you didn't have to attend ND to be an avid follower and fan.
 
[
JamieDimonsBalls said:
Not going to lie, I've always been critical of the ND/IU fans, but I'm starting to understand where you guys are coming from. I grew up following pro sports teams and while many Michiana guys are some combination of Chicago/Detroit/Indy fans for pro sports, a few decades back, ND was effectively the pro sports team for the people in the region. Meaning, you didn't have to attend ND to be an avid follower and fan.
Click to expand...
It hasn’t helped IU football any.
 
JamieDimonsBalls said:
Not going to lie, I've always been critical of the ND/IU fans, but I'm starting to understand where you guys are coming from. I grew up following pro sports teams and while many Michiana guys are some combination of Chicago/Detroit/Indy fans for pro sports, a few decades back, ND was effectively the pro sports team for the people in the region. Meaning, you didn't have to attend ND to be an avid follower and fan.
Click to expand...
If you’re raised catholic in the greater Chicago area - there’s a 95% chance you’re an ND football fan.
 
glmiu11 said:
I agree. But why not support ND basketball then?
Click to expand...
Because they weren’t treated like the same. I even went to ND hockey camp over a high school summer but I’ve no loyalty to them either.

ND football is its own thing. They know this and this is why they have a football tv deal and remain independent. The other sports I can’t care less about.
 
INRanger27 said:
Because they weren’t treated like the same. I even went to ND hockey camp over a high school summer but I’ve no loyalty to them either.

ND football is its own thing. They know this and this is why they have a football tv deal and remain independent. The other sports I can’t care less about.
Click to expand...

So why do they remain independent? I went over to ND board once and asked that question. They all stated that ND would make a lot more money if they joined the B1G and insisted that it wasn't about money.
 
dbmhoosier said:
So why do they remain independent? I went over to ND board once and asked that question. They all stated that ND would make a lot more money if they joined the B1G and insisted that it wasn't about money.
Click to expand...

They would make money but they would struggle to win the BIG. This way they get their own National Title consideration set aside instead of having to go through Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Wisconsin, etc. on a yearly basis. They play half their games against the weak ACC and then have a bunch of traditional games against opponents like Army.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Spartans9312 and HillzHoozier
dbmhoosier said:
So why do they remain independent? I went over to ND board once and asked that question. They all stated that ND would make a lot more money if they joined the B1G and insisted that it wasn't about money.
Click to expand...

I heard someone at ND made a big deal that they did not want thought of as a Midwestern school and that was part of the equation for them.
 
IUCrazy2 said:
They would make money but they would struggle to win the BIG. This way they get their own National Title consideration set aside instead of having to go through Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Wisconsin, etc. on a yearly basis. They play half their games against the weak ACC and then have a bunch of traditional games against opponents like Army.
Click to expand...

That's what I thought too. Seems like they always play a bunch of decent teams in that 20-50 range but almost never any of the elite teams. That way their schedule looks a lot stronger than it really is on paper.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IUCrazy2
dbmhoosier said:
That's what I thought too. Seems like they always play a bunch of decent teams in that 20-50 range but almost never any of the elite teams. That way their schedule looks a lot stronger than it really is on paper.
Click to expand...

And generally when they do play the really elite teams, they lose.

It sucks to say this, but they are kind of in a similar situation to IU BB. They still land some recruits and have a following but the luster has worn off a bit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark
IUCrazy2 said:
And generally when they do play the really elite teams, they lose.

It sucks to say this, but they are kind of in a similar situation to IU BB. They still land some recruits and have a following but the luster has worn off a bit.
Click to expand...

I thought they had issues recruiting because their admission standards were so high? But then why can Duke recruit so well in basketball?
 
IUCrazy2 said:
And generally when they do play the really elite teams, they lose.

It sucks to say this, but they are kind of in a similar situation to IU BB. They still land some recruits and have a following but the luster has worn off a bit.
Click to expand...

Hey UncleMark and I agreed on something. IU basketball bringing the world together.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark
IUCrazy2 said:
And generally when they do play the really elite teams, they lose.

It sucks to say this, but they are kind of in a similar situation to IU BB. They still land some recruits and have a following but the luster has worn off a bit.
Click to expand...
While they’re not the perennial powerhouse they once were, they’re in far better shape than IU basketball. They play in a BCS type bowl most years and the national championship a few years ago. Yes they got their doors blown off by Clemson two years ago who then went on the win the championship.

Indiana can’t even make the tournament.

They’ve won many elite games in recent years. They barely lost to Georgia last year in Athens. They typically beat a handful of ranked teams each year which is the same as all other good power conference schools.

They also get an extreme amount of hate.
 
CO. Hoosier said:
They are national Roman Catholic—not like the Cowboys. The fans in the stands are Chicago people by petty wide margin.
Click to expand...
They’re actually Jesuit. A sect of Catholicism that I find much more agreeable.
 
IUCrazy2 said:
They would make money but they would struggle to win the BIG. This way they get their own National Title consideration set aside instead of having to go through Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Wisconsin, etc. on a yearly basis. They play half their games against the weak ACC and then have a bunch of traditional games against opponents like Army.
Click to expand...
I find it hard to believe that they’d make more money in B1G or ACC than they do with NBC exclusivity.
 
CO. Hoosier said:
They are national Roman Catholic—not like the Cowboys. The fans in the stands are Chicago people by petty wide margin.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of fans, older ones especially, became ND fans back in the day and are not Catholic. 1) people like winners, see Yankee and Steeler canvases 2) ND was on broadcast TV more than anyone.

Growing up in Columbus, during football season, there were far more ND fans than IU. It had nothing to do with Catholicism. If it did, those same people would have cheered on ND basketball but they switched.
 
Marvin the Martian said:
I think a lot of fans, older ones especially, became ND fans back in the day and are not Catholic. 1) people like winners, see Yankee and Steeler canvases 2) ND was on broadcast TV more than anyone.

Growing up in Columbus, during football season, there were far more ND fans than IU. It had nothing to do with Catholicism. If it did, those same people would have cheered on ND basketball but they switched.
Click to expand...

Having grown up in NW Indiana, the game traffic between Chicago and South Bend was huge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
INRanger27 said:
While they’re not the perennial powerhouse they once were, they’re in far better shape than IU basketball. They play in a BCS type bowl most years and the national championship a few years ago. Yes they got their doors blown off by Clemson two years ago who then went on the win the championship.

Indiana can’t even make the tournament.

They’ve won many elite games in recent years. They barely lost to Georgia last year in Athens. They typically beat a handful of ranked teams each year which is the same as all other good power conference schools.

They also get an extreme amount of hate.
Click to expand...

I think they are further along in their current uptick, but they are still a once National powerhouse that gets mentioned more based on tradition than what they do on the field. That is not a knock on them, but I think that having to go through a conference slate would be tougher for them than being one of the handful of independents who get any type of BCS consideration.
 
T.M.P. said:
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.
Click to expand...
Bully sees nothing wrong with bullying behavior.

Shocking.
 
T.M.P. said:
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.
Click to expand...
This isn’t a great take
 
IUCrazy2 said:
I think they are further along in their current uptick, but they are still a once National powerhouse that gets mentioned more based on tradition than what they do on the field. That is not a knock on them, but I think that having to go through a conference slate would be tougher for them than being one of the handful of independents who get any type of BCS consideration.
Click to expand...
Except they finish in the top 20 year over year while facing ~5 ranked opponents each year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S

Abortion

Replies
11
Views
374
The Water Cooler
sweetsilence
S
MyTeamIsOnTheFloor

Levity In The Midst of Rancor

Replies
0
Views
130
The Water Cooler
MyTeamIsOnTheFloor
MyTeamIsOnTheFloor
NPT

Do you think this guy is correct about the election?

Replies
33
Views
704
The Water Cooler
Joe_Hoopsier
Joe_Hoopsier
BradStevens

Brianna Wu--a progressive expressing regret at progressive politics re trans movement, identity politics, Israeli, etc.

Replies
7
Views
316
The Water Cooler
mcmurtry66
M
WhyisIUBBcursed

Serious question about Christianity and MAGA

Replies
85
Views
2K
The Water Cooler
Mas-sa-suta
Mas-sa-suta
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back