Comment by wayoutthere

6 years ago

I unsubscribed from the NYT after the Tom Cotton editorial. That's when it became clear to me that their ethics were driven by a need to drive traffic to their site and I wanted no part in it.

Stuff like this just reaffirms my decision. Good riddance.

53 comments

wayoutthere

Reply
fullshark  6 years ago

I think that decision was worse than a sign that they have given in to market forces. They have given in to internal activists who have no desire to learn, think, or report the truth, merely use the paper as a weapon for social change.

  • at-fates-hands  6 years ago

    > They have given in to internal activists who have no desire to learn, think, or report the truth.

    I am shocked and saddened this is where we are as a society. Literally one man's opinion distressed so many people, in such a way, they felt the need to raise an army and then descend on their employer and demand they remove, recant and say it will never happen again?

    We have arrived at a time in place where you cannot have your own opinion without fear of the rage mob coming after you.

    “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”

    George Orwell

    -1984

    • evgen  6 years ago

      That man was a United States Senator who suggested using the military to suppress political dissent. The suggestion that this is some minor newspeak squabble or a brief outbreak of political correctness grossly underplays how dangerous this suggestion was and the seeing you try to use Orwell to support your point is even more ridiculous.

      31 replies →

    • AftHurrahWinch  6 years ago

      > Literally one man's opinion distressed so many people, in such a way, they felt the need to raise an army and then descend on their employer

      That one man's opinion was that we should raise an army and then descend on me and my friends.

      Paradox of Tolerance.

      2 replies →

  • nickthemagicman  6 years ago

    That's Matt Taiabbis proposition too.

    https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-news-media-is-destroying-i...

julianeon  6 years ago

Just a hunch but the overlap between the group that abhorred the Cotton editorial and the group that is against doxxing is probably pretty small.

I understand you are in it, but not many people are, I would wager.

fennecfoxen  6 years ago

Traditionally, newspapers' Opinion and Editorial sections have solicited contributions from major political figures. The Wall Street Journal, for instance, has run the following:

"The Change We Need" (by Barack Obama)

"A Partisan Impeachment, a Profile in Courage" (by Mike Pence)

"I Can Defeat Trump and the Clinton Doctrine" (by Tulsi Gabbard)

"Blame the Fed for the Financial Crisis" (by Ron Paul)

"How Short-Termism Saps the Economy" (by Joe Biden)

"Why I Support the Ryan Roadmap" (by Sarah Palin)

"Why Americans Are So Angry" and "Trump Is the Worst Kind of Socialist" (by Bernie Sanders)

"Companies Shouldn’t Be Accountable Only to Shareholders" (by Elizabeth Warren)

Readers of the Journal typically value these pieces as the newsworthy opinions of important figures, even if they disagree with the authors and the politics therein quite vehemently. Very few readers would mistake these pieces' publication for an endorsement, or for depraved and wanton profit-seeking. Rather, publication of these opinions is itself a form of journalism.

Readers of the Times today, however, seem to expect that the ethics of the Times ought to be driven by the Times waging total war on their common political enemies, and that to do otherwise is an offense against decency. The Times does a good job of waging such a war in the general case, sometimes quite laudably; when it does make its exceptions, however, allowing things like the Cotton editorial, it has generally been in the service of Journalism as well, communicating the newsworthy opinions of important figures.

You should not fear, my erstwhile Times-reading comrade! All signs indicate that the Times has capitulated, and your victory over the forces of Journalism has been secured.

(edit: Added the Bernie Sanders and Warren editorials to the list)

  • gesticulator  6 years ago

    This is stunning false equivalence. None of the opinions you offered are similar to Tom Cotton’s apologia for “sending in the tanks”. The NYT Opinions section is still, for better or worse, still quite diverse in its opinions. Ross Douthat and David Brooks are not leaving anytime soon.

    • fennecfoxen  6 years ago

      > None of the opinions you offered are similar to Tom Cotton’s apologia for “sending in the tanks”

      What makes this matter? Precisely, why?

      Does not the radical character of this editorial highlight, as starkly as ever, that this is grossly at odds with the official opinion of the Grey Lady?

      Do you somehow impute a net persuasive power to its appearance in those pages? Do you therefore believe the publication presents an increased risk that such a scheme will be carried out? How?

      Do you perhaps believe that many dangerous racists will find themselves emboldened by its publication, as if racists with a military-police fetish were notorious for subscribing to the Times and justifying their opinions with what is written on its pages? I think not, sir, though you may find them watching Fox.

      The Times could write a thousand opinion columns to their decent readers, warning that Republicans aspire to quash protests with the military; their combined weight would be as nothing compared to the Republican himself telling you in his own words, putting to rest the possibility of doubt.

      3 replies →

    • dekhn  6 years ago

      If you go back in time, the NY Times used to print a lot more conservative op-eds. For example, here's a classic, where William F Buckley, a well known conservative (from a different vein than modern conservatives) proposes tattooing a red letter A on the buttons of gay men infected with HIV:

      http://movies2.nytimes.com/books/00/07/16/specials/buckley-a...

      Cotton could have written a far better editorial and people would complain a lot less. I tried to read it giving him the best intentions but it didn't take long to realize that he really just wanted to send out the military to beat people up.

      1 reply →