This is what finally got me to cancel my subscription.
I'm not sure if the @nytimes.com leadership is genuinely authoritarian or just so lost in its navel-gazing it can't see what it's doing, but I *do* know this:
Whoever wrote this editorial is an idiot & I'm not paying to hear this shit anymore.
“When you condemn anybody who rejoices in Palestinian deaths, that’s an act of shunning and shaming which threatens Free Speech; but when I condemn you for taking such a position, that’s simply the voice of reason from the Serious Civil Center.”
I mean, that’s literally what they’re saying, right?
Shaming and shunning are the least violent and most polite ways to communicate moral disapproval. Even Emily Post wrote about the social use of shunning.
It seems really in keeping with Joe Kahn’s assertion that the Democratic Party swung too far to the left after 2016 and it’s their responsibility to provide “balance”.
Which is to say, both, I think.
These words justifying their hot garbage are from a place of entitlement & privilege. The obv contempt for anyone having the temerity to criticize the opinion of a upper income, educated white is palpable.
I'm old enough to remember when a political candidate could be derailed by misspelling a single word - or expressing a moment of frustration / exuberance - or insulting 47% of population.
If anything, politicians have more freedom today to say idiotic things.
Compared to their support of beating the crap out of students who question Israel’s war in Gaza children and other civilians. They not only are skinned, shunned, but physically harmed. And The NY Times cheerleads it all.
But a right wing racist gets his feelings hurt, The NY Times is up in arms!
They're genuinely authoritarian. They surveil their employees. If you tweet something they deem inappropriate they not only sanction you, and demand an apology, but the tweet is stored in a database. AND they restrict internal speech
My campus library took that full-NYT-access deal for everyone, so it's not just article text in a news database we're already paying for. I'm starting to feel guilty about it. Like peeking at Twitter/X in the Musk era as we wait for him to just suspend all of edu-Twitter.
Cue goose chasing person meme, "what opinions are those?"
Second, that they want to say anything and not get called on it is the most pathetic whine I've ever heard. Absolutely unserious people who shouldn't be near a pencil let alone the NYT.
The inability to engage in a civil argument has metastasized. I recently told a board committee that I disagreed with a proposal and would not vote for it. I didn’t say the idea was stupid. I just said I thought it was bad for the organization. I was accused of being disrespectful. Meeting over.
Wait
Hold on
An editorial board is made up of people whose job it is to have self-important articles on things that they don't understand?
I fucking thought that it was made of just editors who do edits
FWIW, here's the March 2022 piece in question -- thirty-odd grafs of discussion wrapped around a set of NYT/Siena poll results on related topics. www.nytimes.com/2022/03/18/o...
IMO the opening excerpt (vaunting a Fifth Freedom: Freedom from Harsh Criticism) is not characteristic of the whole.
You wouldn't want a family member to marry into NYT leadership. You hope they don't have or raise children. You'd rather they not be neighbors. They are the worst of the worst because they know better.
Look, you can't have free speech unless people can spread disinformation without fear of being called out for it. We need to silence fact-checkers in the name of free speech. 🤷♂️
I cannot think of any point in US history, or world history, where any society did not have "things no fellow can do". A society with no social taboos whatsoever, I'd say, isn't a society. You have to be able to define "This we like, this we don't, this we believe, this we oppose."
NYT editorial board about to publish a new piece: "Smell that? That's free speech, son! I love the smell of free speech in the morning. Smells like... victory."
I canceled my wapo subscription when they fired a ton of people but not Hugh Hewitt. That left me only with the Times. If I cancel the Times, where do I go? I am a rare modern person that wants to pay for high quality news. The high quality regional papers of my youth are garbage now.
I finally stopped paying to read that horseshit around 2 months ago after YEARS as a subscriber. That newspaper has very clearly lost its editorial direction and way.
I thought the “conservatives” supported the free market of ideas? Any chance they’ll learn that Darwinian capitalism has its limits? Especially if you can’t remove the losers - ever.
God damn it. I wish I hadn't already canceled my subscription for other egregious editorials, because this one is the WORST and deserves canceling the most.
Somehow the "depluralizing" feels like the worst part. Not even Robert Dahl would say the U.S. is less "plural" than 25 years ago simply because fascists are criticized.
Ya can’t just say openly bigoted and completely untrue things on corporate media outlets anymore with worry that some other corporations might pull their ads, this used to be a proper country
amex reimburses my subscription so i have no idea whose pocket the $4/mo comes out of but i will cancel in solidarity. i only look at the recipes they push and they’re starting to repeat anyway. and the “breaking” notifications are stressful and silly.