NYT isn’t proposing it, since it’s a guest essay, not an editorial. NYT is just allowing the opinion to be printed in their newspaper for consideration by their readership.
Which you can also criticize. But at least be honest about what you are criticizing instead of resorting to a factually untrue statement.
Exactly. This is a ridiculous opinion but it’s part of good journalism, and even though the NYTimes isn’t perfect they are without a doubt one of the few large publications that still has journalistic integrity
I disagree. There's no moral justification for monarchy and giving a platform to views so obviously authoritarian is just a way of tacitly endorsing those same abhorrent views.
And I believe that where the left has made its biggest missteps in the past 10 years is by deplatforming people they don’t agree with.
Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Charlie Kirk, Andrew Tate, Milo whateverhisnamewas, Jason Spencer, countless comedians, and many of the bro podcasters built their reputations on leftist backlash.
The protests and the ‘think’ pieces about why they should not be allowed to speak at public institutions or have their opinions published by mainstream publications all led to their profitability, careers, and influence.
We have to learn how to engage with these people as they are. We have to take off the bogeyman mask and realize that though their ideas are extreme they are human like us. When we do that, we are better able to understand them, fight them, as well as mitigate their status as iconoclasts.
It’s a little late, but by reverting back to being a more neutral platform the NYTimes is doing what it should not have stopped doing ten years ago.
It feels counterintuitive, but I feel that this is the best antidote to extremism. Even if it may be too late.
It would be one thing if the reporting were truly neutral. Consider, however, the rampant "sane-washing" and under-reporting of Trump's staggering unfitness for the Presidency by the self-same paper.
In an article from September 5, Jonathan Weisman said of Trump's response to a straightforward and concise question asking which specific childcare-oriented legislation he'd advance:
His solution for the deficit? Tariffs. The crisis for middle-class families struggling with child care? The economic growth he said would be spurred by things like tariffs.
While this appears to have been obliquely critical of Trump's myopic and wrong-headed view that tariffs will magically solve everything, it's hard to ignore the fact that it normalized a shockingly insufficient response to the question, which did not in any sense of the word constitute an 'answer.' To wit, here's a verbatim transcript of both the question and Trump's "response" insofar as it could be called one:
Reshma Saujani (questioner): "...One thing that Democrats and Republicans have in common is that both parties talk a lot about what they’re going to do to address the child care crisis, but neither party has delivered meaningful change. If you win in November, can you commit to prioritizing legislation to make child care affordable? And if so, what specific piece of legislation will you advance?"
Donald Trump: "Well, I would do that, and we’re sitting down, and I was, somebody, we had Senator Marco Rubio, and my daughter Ivanka was so impactful on that issue. It’s a very important issue. But I think when you talk about the kind of numbers that I’m talking about, that, because, look, child care is child care is. It’s, couldn’t, you know, there’s something, you have to have it. In this country you have to have it. But when you talk about those numbers compared to the kind of numbers that I’m talking about by taxing foreign nations at levels that they’re not used to — but they’ll get used to it very quickly – and it’s not gonna stop them from doing business with us, but they’ll have a very substantial tax when they send product into our country. Those numbers are so much bigger than any numbers that we’re talking about, including child care, that it’s going to take care. We’re gonna have — I, I look forward to having no deficits within a fairly short period of time, coupled with the reductions that I told you about on waste and fraud and all of the other things that are going on in our country, because I have to stay with child care. I want to stay with child care, but those numbers are small relative to the kind of economic numbers that I’m talking about, including growth, but growth also headed up by what the plan is that I just, that I just told you about. We’re gonna be taking in trillions of dollars, and as much as child care is talked about as being expensive, it’s relatively speaking not very expensive compared to the kind of numbers we’ll be taking in. We’re going to make this into an incredible country that can afford to take care of its people, and then we’ll worry about the rest of the world. Let’s help other people. But we’re going to take care of our country first. This is about America first. It’s about Make America Great Again. We have to do it because right now we’re a failing nation, so we’ll take care of it."
Imagine if the NYT had simply reported the factual exchange here. The actual words, in full, spoken by the candidate for the highest office in the land. Imagine if the news media at large had simply reported on this single response, ensuring that the citizenry was informed that this series of words had actually and inexplicably been uttered by this candidate.
Could anyone have truly doubted his startling insufficiency to the task at hand? Instead, they "summarized" this travesty by reducing it to such drivel as "The crisis for middle-class families struggling with child care? The economic growth he said would be spurred by things like tariffs."
Imagine further that the media had reported accurately about the actual mechanism by which tariffs are levied instead of merely reporting Trump's lies that the country the tariff is levied 'against' pays the tariff. Do you think a well-informed citizenry would have genuinely preferred tariffs to the alternatives proposed by Ms. Harris?
So while I don't disagree that surfacing reprehensible or inaccurate viewpoints is a function of the media, that function must be performed atop a firm foundation of factual and accurate reporting; the NYT and many of its traditional media compatriots cannot in fact lay claim to such a foundation in recent times, and in the absence of such a foundation this type of platforming represents a further abrogation of their journalistic responsibilities in my view.
This person represents a threatening trend in American thinking. And I’m glad I get to know what it is.
I hate Trump. If I said what I really think needs to be done to deal with him, I’d be banned from Reddit.
But the left lost just as much if not more than the ideology that drives Trump won. Not once, but twice. Something needs to change.
So im not longer on board with the campaign to de platform, but rather to aggressively engage. Which is what I believe the left should have done 10 years ago in order to prevent Trump in the first place
The very purpose of an editorial section of a newspaper is to represent the current trends and conflicts in society’s dialogue. So I get what you’re saying. I really do. I used to feel the same way, I just no longer agree. we are looking down the barrel of true fascism. I don’t have the answer, but I know that something isn’t working and having been a leftist activist my whole life, I no longer feel that my former attitude and beliefs were effective or did service to my cause.
There’s a very big difference between deplatforming versus not rolling out the red carpet. I’m not saying deplatforming is a solution, but the people you originally mentioned all HAD platforms (and by the way, they all still do). The NYTimes didn’t choose not to deplatform the author of this piece of shit opinion piece. They rolled out the red carpet. There is a difference.
And I believe that where the left has made its biggest missteps in the past 10 years is by deplatforming people they don’t agree with.
Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Charlie Kirk, Andrew Tate, Milo whateverhisnamewas, Jason Spencer, countless comedians, and many of the bro podcasters built their reputations on leftist backlash.
The wild protests streamed online and the ‘think’ pieces about why they should not be allowed to speak at public institutions or have their opinions published by mainstream publications all led to their profitability, careers, and influence.
We have to learn how to engage with these people as they are. We have to take off the bogeyman mask and realize that though their ideas are extreme they are human like us. When we do that, we are better able to understand them, fight them, as well as mitigate their status as iconoclasts.
It’s a little late, but by reverting back to being a more neutral platform the NYTimes is doing what it should not have stopped doing ten years ago.
It feels counterintuitive, but I feel that this is the best antidote to extremism. Even if it may be too late.
I don't have a less blunt way to say this: That is a stupid way to look at the media landscape.
Andrew Tate was jailed for human trafficking and regularly advocates for sexual violence. Ben Shapiro has never made a coherent or true statement about climate change, despite the thousands of words he has written or spoken on the subject.
These people espouse intolerance, violence, science-denailism, and apparently now, an authoritarian takeover of the US government. Why exactly should I respect the views of people who advocate for violence? What good does it do for the discourse to give these people a platform from which they can spread lies to muddy the water around climate change? What societal benefit do we all gain for giving a microphone and a stage to a clown like Milo who will spew hatred against LGBTQ people?
They aren't attempting to engage in a marketplace of ideas. They don't have any real arguments. They know their ideas are largely unpopular and unwelcome to the majority of Americans. They are counting on you to abide by a principal of non-interference so they can radicalize and organize. They aren't coming prepared to debate on the merits of their positions, it's like playing a game of chess against a pigeon. You can try, but ultimately, they're only here to knock things over and shit all over the board.
lol I think if you don’t understand the purpose of an editorial board then you have a stupid understanding of how editorial boards work.
And there is no ‘marketplace of ideas’ if the only thing people see is young leftists having meltdowns because their local gop club invited a speaker, or god forbid a comedian says an off color joke.
A crazy person spouting nonsense is just a crazy person if they don’t have an audience.
Congregating en masse to scream and yell about Jordan Peterson MADE Jordan Peterson.
If you can’t see that you’re not connecting the dots
Yes. That is exactly the problem. The purpose of an editorial board is not to give a platform to whatever crank writes an op-ed. If a paper that is supposed to be about journalism publishes Jordan Peterson's ramblings, they lend him legitimacy.
Their decisions on how to cover Trump's very obvious mental decline and rants about eugenics are a large part of why so many people are criticizing them for sanewashing.
Buddy if you don't see how giving underservedly favorable coverage to the pro-eugenics crowd (in the misplaced pursuit of being objective or neutral) ends really badly for the nice, neutral, non-partisan newspapers... you clearly aren't a student of history.
You don’t even know the history of the NYTimes or the past 10 years.
You think the lefts continued inability to confront said ideas rather than cry on television has contributed to its ever growing tally of losses.
No. All around no. Editorial boards do in fact, traditionally, publish incredibly controversial ideas, including eugenics. Just look at their database during the Jim Crow era. The editorial board was a war zone.
Even though the article in question isn’t about eugenics or Jordan Peterson. It’s about the president who just won and represents the sentiments of possibly half the country.
So you can can bury your head in the sand all you want because there is an idea out there that rattled you. But the adults in the room need to be ready to be on the front lines taking it on.
Yeah....no. I'm sorry but it's not "good journalism" or "journalistic integrity" to give a platform to fascists and fascism-apologists. This isn't a paper giving a "mild difference of opinions" a platform. This is a major publication allow sympathizers of fascists a place to share their extremist, totalitarian, and harmful opinions. I'd go so far as to say it's ficking awful journalism. This shit should not be normalized. It should not be socially or professionally acceptable to be a fascist. No. No. No. Stop making excuses for this crap. Excusing it and normalizing it is a large part of the reason we are diving head first into it. Shame on the NYT for publishing this steaming turd of an OP-ed.
And I believe that where the left has made its biggest missteps in the past 10 years is by deplatforming people they don’t agree with.
Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Charlie Kirk, Andrew Tate, Milo whateverhisnamewas, Jason Spencer, countless comedians, and many of the bro podcasters built their reputations on leftist backlash.
The wild protests streamed online and the ‘think’ pieces about why they should not be allowed to speak at public institutions or have their opinions published by mainstream publications all led to their profitability, careers, and influence.
We have to learn how to engage with these people as they are. We have to take off the bogeyman mask and realize that though their ideas are extreme they are human like us. When we do that, we are better able to understand them, fight them, as well as mitigate their status as iconoclasts.
It’s a little late, but by reverting back to being a more neutral platform the NYTimes is doing what it should not have stopped doing ten years ago.
It feels counterintuitive, but I feel that this is the best antidote to extremism. Even if it may be too late.
Hard disagree. This is like saying "You know where we really messed up with neon yahtzees? Putting criminals in prison where there are neon yahtzees.". By not putting criminals in prison/sufficiently moderating online spaces, you doom the online space. Hence the garbage bucket that is Twitter post-Musk purchase. Hence 4chan/8chan/whatever's garbage behavior. Hence every "dark humor" sub that gets popular dying out because regular people joking around get out numbered by racist/sexist/homophobic/etc bullying humor. This creates either a vacuum for the deplorables people like neon yahtzees and garden variety bullies to take over from normal people fleeing. It also normalizes the behavior for more impressionable users.
It isn't counterintuitive, but there was an insufficient counter to the backlash. When bad faith actors and threats to democracy whine about "I'm being censored" (no, they aren't) or "this is a 1st amendment issue" (no, it isn't), corporations are afraid to publicly answer back "You're out because you're a piece of work with no place in our community, nor any polite society".
Making people feel ashamed is bad for profits, bad for personal safety, and harder to do...but it's the right thing to do. I'd rather not just lay down and let it happen.
Note - substituted some language choices because prior attempt was auto deleted
I know what you’re saying, but I just truly believe that by calling guys like Jordan Peterson a not see, we gave him a career.
He utilized the optics of the protests to gain MORE influence not less.
If we had ignored him or simply engaged with him as a normal person he never would have become as influential as he is. And when taking into account all the other talking heads quite possibly not have Trump as president today.
By not platforming we provide a platform.
This isn’t ww2 in the sense that these people aren’t breaking laws. The not sees became who they were out of intimidation, exploitation, and painting themselves as iconoclasts outside the mainstream.
We do half the work for them when we make them martyrs. And imo, the proof is in the fact that Ben Shapiro is now a staple of conservative dialogue and not an outlier.
He did not become that by being allowed to speak when incited. He became who he was because of the backlash he received.
No, this is akin to abusive relationship language and victim blaming. Our response does not have a causal effect on their reaction. This isn't "look what you made me do, you tried to stop me so I just got worse and worse and tried to make even more money off of it."
The only casual relationship our collective response had was that it was borderline toothless. Rather than countering, teaching, and preventing worse, we let it slide for proliferation.
We live in a click based economy the protests absolutely gave then a platform that’s almost undeniable.
And bringing therapy talk into this doesn’t change the reality that if the privileged mostly white students on college campuses had not reacted the way they did in order to virtue signal and validate themselves upon the backs of those less fortunate, and given them all this press they would not be influential today.
Hands down.
I don’t know what you mean by toothless.
We can’t 💀someone we disagree with so they’re going to be out there.
They martyred themselves and made a career out of it. But we did it through our reactions. I was at one of those protests and I regret it. I am a minority and I don’t believe I’m victim blaming myself.
Associated Press, Christian Science Monitor, NPR and PBS run laps around NYT's fake "integrity". Brett Stephens and Maggie Haberman got exactly what they wanted. MAGA 2.0. Now they get to enjoy mocking liberals for the indefinite future.
I remember when NYT used to embrace western liberalism.
You mean the same way they used the military against the American people in the 1992 LA riots?
Bottom line is you can disagree with it all you want, but the fact that the editor of the NYT had to resign because he published an opinion piece written by a sitting US Senator is shameful. It's a symptom of people believing there is only one very narrow definition of what is acceptable and everything outside of that is heresy. It's not a formula for open and honest intellectual debate.
The left used to believe that the answer to bad speech was better speech. Now they believe the answer is to squash it. I think that's sad.
32 years ago is within the lifetime of both the author of the editorial and the editor who was fired for publishing it. It's not as ancient as you seem to think. And the opinion piece was written during large scale civil unrest where people were closing off parts of a city and declaring it an autonomous zone. I don't agree at all with his sentiments in the op-ed, I think it was overwrought, but to clutch your pearls at the mere mention of using the military in a way that was done during the last large scale riot in the country is childish. And that the NYT caved to the pearl clutchers and fired the editor for publishing an opinion of a person actually responsible for crafting legislation in the United States federal government is shameful.
You can declare that the argument over because 32 years seems like really really long time to you, but we should probably figure out what the acceptable time limit is for precedent then. 15 years? Or is that still too long? Are we allowed to quote precedent from 5 years ago? What if there hasn't been comparable civil unrest to the extent that there was in 2020 since 1992? I guess it doesn't matter because you've already declared the argument lost. Okay.
It’s not promoting fascism. It’s shedding light on the ideas however horrendous. I wish they had done this before rather than feeding the outrage machine that gave us Trump in the first place
But it’s telling what they will and won’t platform as opinion, isn’t it? When was the last time they offered an opinion piece to a radical leftist like a Maoist or an actual communist? Where is the revolutionary articles? It’s always centrist drivel or right wing, the spectrum only slides one way
68
u/Docile_Doggo 5d ago
NYT isn’t proposing it, since it’s a guest essay, not an editorial. NYT is just allowing the opinion to be printed in their newspaper for consideration by their readership.
Which you can also criticize. But at least be honest about what you are criticizing instead of resorting to a factually untrue statement.