Link of the Day

Bari Weiss’s letter of resignation from the NYTimes is a crucial read. I tried to cull a particularly important quote from it but that’s not possible. The whole letter is really powerful.

22 thoughts on “Link of the Day”

  1. Note: Bari Weiss started at the NYT in April 2017. The NYT got rid of its public editor in June of 2017. It took her this long to be mad about “Twitter” and meanie Slack comments being her “editor?”

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Everybody has their limit and she reached hers on this date and not on another date. Why does it matter? The point is that many people rely on information provided by a dishonest, ideological news source.

      Like

      1. I think it’s super predictable that “Twitter” would become her editor the minute they got rid of the public editor. It strikes me as not being that bright. And I don’t have a lot of respect for pedigreed idiots with sinecures.

        If there was no buffer between the op ed columnists and the public of course all of that ridiculous huffing gets directed at their twitter handles and the slack, because there’s nowhere else for it to go and there’s no moderator. They brought her on to troll for outrage clicks under the veneer of respectability, unlike those other trashy outfits like Buzzfeed and Townhall. If the public editor evaporating didn’t clue her in, what the fuck was that “anonymous” NYT op-ed?

        Feel bad for her and follow her to her next cushy op-ed job.

        Like

        1. She’s very talented, so she should get a new cushy job. The point, as usual in these cases, isn’t that Weiss will starve. The point is that the most popular newspaper in the country has become completely ideological and stupid. We are the losers here, not Weiss. The problem is ours.

          Like

        2. “Bari Weiss just recently signed a letter condemning people getting fired from their jobs for expressing their views and then in her resignation letter complains that people who expressed their views about her weren’t sanctioned or fired.”

          Like

  2. The bit about twitter appearing on the masthead was especially good. One of the things that’s killing journalism is the fact that journalists seem to be the worlds worst twitter junkies.

    Like

    1. In the meantime, there’s a place for this person at the NYTimes:

      From @nytimes – 7 Issues, 7 Days: Every day for a week, we’ll email you a piece that unpacks the inequities women face in the U.S. From car interiors to hospital hallways, from the hours she works to the salary she brings home. Get started here: https://t.co/2ByIkLaPlQ

      Forget ideology and look at the command of the English language. “Unpacking inequities”? What does this even mean? It’s like a parody of the worst kind of undergrad seminar. Pathetic.

      Like

  3. Like

    1. So this person is angry that Weiss will probably find another job after leaving the NYT? Would the only outcome that satisfies them be that she never works again?

      Like

        1. I have no idea who she is, by the way. And I’d rather discuss the phenomenon she points out and not anybody as an individual. But the neoliberal mentality doesn’t allow for that. Good things happen to good people. If bad things happen, the only conclusion to draw is that you are a low-quality entrepreneur of self.

          Like

  4. As previously reported by VICE, among the questions top brass was asked at an all-hands the Times held last month was whether Weiss would be fired for “openly bad mouth[ing] younger news colleagues on a platform where they, because of strict company policy, could not defend themselves.”

    Like

    1. Nelson, is there any detailed description published somewhere, based on which one could form an informed opinion about what exactly constituted Weiss “badmouthing” her colleagues, to the degree that would warrant firing?

      And I disagree with your initial argument. So the only way for someone quitting one’s job in protest against anything to be taken seriously is to become completely destitute as a result? Having any kind of safety invalidates one’s argument?

      Like

      1. This is a particularly important point: “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.”

        And this: “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.”

        Curiously, nobody is discussing or contesting this. It all became about Weiss’s employment trajectory.

        A wrong is being done to us, people who need to know what’s happening and who rely on news media for it. We are being wronged here. And instead of standing up to it, we are justifying it.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. The customer is always right. It doesn’t help your business if you provide good reporting to people who don’t want it.

          I seem to remember Nassim Taleb commenting once that he only trusts news from the financial press. The reason for this is that traders need accurate information in order to make trades. Trading based on fake news is a good way to lose money.

          Ideally traders want accurate information for themselves while their competitors listen to fake news. Wall Street will happily invest in purveyors of fake news so long as they get accurate information for themselves.

          Like

    1. Dame Eleanor, as a Brit I apologise that you allowed a scouser to take control of 0ne of your institutions.

      Like

  5. “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.” This has been the consensus of progressives as long as I remember. We have all the answers, everyone else just needs to get with the program.

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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.