The Most Faithful

James Bennett, the editor who encouraged Ta-Nehisi Coates write his famous long piece on reparations when no other editor wanted anything to do with it, has been fired from NYTimes because the woke crowd is upset with him over something minor and utterly incomprehensible to most people.

They always come for the most faithful first.

21 thoughts on “The Most Faithful”

  1. I think the reason he had to resign is because when the controversy erupted he admitted that he hadn’t read the controversial article before it was published. He’s the opinion editor, it’s his job to read things before they are published.


    1. “He’s the opinion editor, it’s his job to read things before they are published.”

      Please explain the logic behind this assertion.

      If he’s an editor, wouldn’t he be likely to delegate decisions on articles in development to the responsible NYT staffers? Isn’t it possible, even likely, that the idea in principle of a US Senator writing an opinion piece on this topic was approved by him or an authorized subordinate and was submitted in a form that was technically presentable and stopped short of advocating that poor people sell their children to rich gentlemen and ladies for food? Indeed, according to Cotton’s account, the draft went back and forth three times between NYT staff and his office staff before it was finally approved.

      “It’s his job…” sounds plausible as an excuse to one who might be seeking an excuse but fails to meet the sniff test if someone takes the trouble to sniff even slightly. Really, it’s just blah, blah, blah…


      1. That article is “like literally genocide.” Why would he confess to reading it? I’m sure he still wants to be employed somewhere. His only chance of still having a career is to pretend to not have read it.


      2. I don’t know about the inner workings of the New York Times, but I used to work for a small newspaper. At my small paper, the section editor or the associate editor was supposed to read everything that went out in their section. If the associate editor came across something potentially controversial or questionable, the article would have been held or the section editor would have been called in (even if it was a day off or a vacation day) to approve it. Often the entire editorial team would discuss a really controversial article. Approving the articles in the section is the primary responsibility of a section editor. The little paper I worked for was a far smaller operation than the NYT, but our section editors would have been in serious trouble if a controversial article was published and they admitted they hadn’t read it.


        1. “editors would have been in serious trouble if a controversial article was published and they admitted they hadn’t read it.”

          Still not buying this as any sort of explanation (although I enjoyed Clarissa’s tongue-in-cheek remark about protecting future employment prospects.)

          From the public record, a Red Guards struggle session was held, obviously this dude was chosen to wear the tallest dunce cap, was pilloried by the Antifa-supporting comrade workers in the newsroom, and now has been sent to the countryside in disgrace to work in the fields along with the peasants.

          To rebel is justified – down with the capitalist-roaders!!

          Not living in America, I just don’t get why what the NYT does or doesn’t do is so obsessionally important to Americans. It’s weird to me since it hasn’t been a good newspaper for a really long time. It’s hardly alone in its decline into propagandistic unprofessionalism but really, honestly, for many years it’s been nothing more than CNN with a bigger vocabulary and better grammar.


          1. This is a pretty good description of what happens. And it matters because it’s soon coming to every workplace. The number of people already fired for not being sufficiently supportive of BLM is growing.


  2. In non-news almost as ridiculous, HBO Max is going to start streaming new cartoons based on the world-famous movie cartoon character Bugs Bunny being hunted during rabbit season by the always unsuccessful hunter Elmer Fudd. Warner Brothers made hundreds of theatrical cartoons about that chase from the 1940’s into the 1960’s.

    But in the new HBO series, the hunter won’t be shown carrying a gun, because that would display “gun violence.” HBO will have him hunting the rabbit with absurd weapons like a scythe and dynamite — because unlike a shotgun, using those weapons is just harmless “cartoony violence.”

    No, I’m not making this up.


  3. Why in the hell did WordPress put my latest comment “in moderation” AGAIN??

    Was its content “too violent” or something?


    1. “Why in the hell did WordPress put my latest comment “in moderation” AGAIN??”

      WordPress isn’t angry at you…. it’s disappointed in you…. and it hopes that maybe you’ll give more thought next time. Do you think you can do that? Now, WordPress would like a hug!


      1. “our most right-wing commenter”

        Who are you calling a right-winger? I’m so liberal on some issues I make myself sick.

        WordPress would like a hug? Give it a SLUG!


          1. I said I was tolerant on some issues — like abortion rights and the peaceful protest by privileged, over-educated children who block the Arizona highways that I pay high taxes to drive over, and the pot-headed stoners who run up my automobile insurance every time I get behind the wheel.

            Even tolerant of Democratic senators like our Kyrsten Sinema, as long as she keeps voting in favor of Republican issues and wearing short dresses that show off her sexy legs.

            As for anarchists like Antifa, the U.S. Army 82nd Airborne unit should have parachuted into Minneapolis last Sunday with fixed bayonets to finish off the arsonists and looters.

            You can call me “DR. Dreidel Tolerant.” 🙂


      1. Scalzi does that with a filter. And he gets way more comments. The idea is that you deal with the comments when you want to not when someone gets a bug up their ass at 3 am your time and tries to brigade your comment section.

        I’ve also seen many bloggers shut off comments to a post after x days. Even reddit subdomains will do that.

        But nobody was as anal as Shakesville. chef’s kiss


        1. The way it works on this blog is if I approved your comment once (which is your very first comment you ever made), you can post anything and any time you want. There’s no moderation by me after that initial moderation.

          I don’t tend to attract angry, stupid people. There’s social media for them. Why would they want to bother with a blog?

          I’m not looking for a high volume of comments from strangers. We have mostly regular commenters here who have well-developed commenting personalities, and that makes it a lot more interesting.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.