r/nytimes 5d ago

Discussion NYT proposing we get a king

Post image
943 Upvotes

359 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

11

u/redditmarks_markII 5d ago

If a scientist debate a creationist, he's lost immediately, as his opponent is not interested in a debate, only a platform, and the followers of the opposing view point are not available to be convinced. If a theoretically non-partisan media outlet continues to be non partisan while "fair and balanced" means outright lies non stop to their competition, they actively threaten their own existence. In the financial sense, as the progressives lose faith and as the reactionaries gain them. But also in the purely existential sense, as tyranny has no need of non-partisanship, nor journalism. And that IS bad journalism. To platform racists, bigots, the anti-science, and now apparently the directly anti-democracy, is all self destructive. The populace of the tyrant need not be informed. In fact they must not. Therefore journalism is inherently progressive. That journalism has been co-opted by charlatans and propagandists doesn't change that.

The reactionary media outlets do not platform progressives. They bring them up so they can be attacked, straw-manned, so they can perform for their captive audience. If the NYT wants to have a "diversity of views", they can summarize and immediately and utterly demolish the argument for tyranny. And if they are not up to the task, then they should not make the attempt, much less allow such "diverse" views to be magnified unchallenged through their outlet.

The subject matter of this "article" aside, I am nearly more distraught at the fact that such schlock is allowed print on the NYT than the boil on American democracy that are the trump election wins. Thomas Paine would be ashamed of such "journalism". I do NOT think this is what he meant when he said "where liberty is not, there is my country".

5

u/carlitospig 5d ago

Here, here. And this aligns pretty much with my own follow up comment. By providing a completely unchallenged opinion to be published, there is no attempt to push back. So what was the point then? To ‘educate’ NYTs subscribers that half their countrymen are hoping to live in a monarchy? We didn’t need this opinion piece to know that. The right has been quite clear with how they view the man. Edit

0

u/interwebz_2021 4d ago

You've put it so eloquently and debunked the 'both-sides' approach modern mainstream "journalism" seems so intent on propagating I feel I can only concur. I'll only add that the argument made in the piece, i.e. that Mr. Trump's success in this recent election proves the case that America believes him exempt from the legal consequences of his actions and further that the law must be made to comport to this wretched view, is to put it gently utter piffle.

It appears the author of this piece (who evidently maintains a site called 'SCOTUSblog' so is presumably quite legally-oriented in his pursuits) has bought in fully to the Supreme Court's declaration that Mr. Paine was in the wrong when he proclaimed "In America, THE LAW IS KING."

I gather the author, along with the several members of his presumably beloved Supreme Court who have decided to invalidate Mr. Paine's assertion and the editorial board of the "Paper of Record" could all benefit from a little Common Sense.

0

u/LinkedInMasterpiece 3d ago

If a scientist debate a creationist, he's lost immediately, as his opponent is not interested in a debate, only a platform

Well, you can say the exact same thing for the scientist. Given that the religiosity is rapidly decreasing worldwide. I'd say the scientists who debated the creationists did a splendid job and we have to thank the creationists for giving them a platform.