no way NYT

maybe she's Elon Musk's alt

love the fact that she took 12 weeks to do research for a listicle

An open letter from NYT contributors about the paper's embrace of transphobia: https://nytletter.com/. (As Slate pointed out this was published yesterday, and then the PP/JK thing came out today...)

Definitely worth reading the whole thing, but this stood out in light of the very confused posts about bias & influence upthread:

The natural destination of poor editorial judgment is the court of law. Last year, Arkansas’ attorney general filed an amicus brief in defense of Alabama’s Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act, which would make it a felony, punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment, for any medical provider to administer certain gender⁠-⁠affirming medical care to a minor (including puberty blockers) that diverges from their sex assigned at birth. The brief cited three different New York Times articles to justify its support of the law: Bazelon’s “The Battle Over Gender Therapy,” Azeen Ghorayshi’s “Doctors Debate Whether Trans Teens Need Therapy Before Hormones,” and Ross Douthat’s “How to Make Sense of the New L.G.B.T.Q. Culture War.” As recently as February 8th, 2023, attorney David Begley’s invited testimony to the Nebraska state legislature in support of a similar bill approvingly cited the Times’ reporting and relied on its reputation as the “paper of record” to justify criminalizing gender⁠-⁠affirming care.

I signed that— has thousands of signatures

ej rosetta is such a blatant grifter to the point that even some of the other transphobes have caught on (there's a lot of drama with her begging for paypal donations 'to protect lesbians' etc. and starting inscrutable beefs with other transphobes). it's almost certain there was no listicle assignment to begin with, let alone that she had three months to do it or that she was pro-trans before it

And then today, McWhorter’s newsletter defends Desantis. I often wonder whether the former is aware that all of the people whose boots he’s licking would like to see him dead, or whether he’s somehow convinced himself that he’s “one of the good ones.”

Having just read the column, he could've offered his non-controversial views without framing it around goddamn DeSantis, who will share the thing and go, "See?"

As someone who has read several of his essays and even one of his books, it pains me to conclude that John McWhorter may not be very bright.

For all I know, he is a brilliant linguist (I haven't seen any criticism of his work in that area), it's his forays into social/political punditry that don't reflect well on him.

His view on dying languages is appaling to me, especially in the Canadian context of FNIM trying to reclaim their cultural heritage, so even as a linguist he can be frustrating.

I think he’s smart enough to know how many sales you guarantee by titling your book Woke Racism.

He’s not a good linguist either.

He isn't that bad a linguist, really. Or at least he didn't use to be 20 years ago. His The Power of Babel is one of the books that first got me into the subject, and I think it's still a good introduction. Also his Great Courses on the history of the English language is solid. He has been such a massive disappointment over the last decade though.

American Teens Are Really Miserable. Why?

—Ross Douthat

Q: American Teens Are Really Miserable. Why?
A: Ross Douthat

I occasionally write comments on NYT op-eds because I can’t resist, this Douthat column made me write this:

“In a culture where most people have to work constantly (occasionally at multiple jobs) in order to afford basic necessities while one political ideology doubles down on fascism and the other doubles down on neoliberalism and hollow politics of representation, it’s no wonder that young people are depressed. There are no opportunities except meaningless drudgery available to many, and those jobs that might have some meaning are not well-remunerated. Add climate destabilization, attacks on women, racism, attacks on LGBTQ people, and a nihilistic political culture that operates at the whims of the wealthy and corporations? The question becomes: how are young people NOT depressed, living in this world that Reagan and each president following him have built.”

Ross Asshat.

You know who's more miserable than teens? Boomers. Whine, whine, whine on Facebook. whine, whine, whine with their Don't Tread On Me flags and their Republican voting patterns.

Unsubscribed today. For months I'd only been reading the Arts, Books, and Magazine sections (the latter every time David Marchese interviewed somebody, and that's about it) and I finally decided I don't even need that. With the Atlantic toughening its paywall significantly (opening articles in an incognito browser window doesn't work anymore), I'm gonna be fresh out of empty-headed bullshit soon!

Joyce Carol Oates coming out of the audience with a hatchet in each hand:

no one wants to acknowledge that perhaps teenagers spend so much time on their cell phones because the conversations of their elders, including mansplainers like Ross Douthat, are exhausting, boring, & unrewarding to them. https://t.co/3GAUeZUzwm

— Joyce Carol Oates (@JoyceCarolOates) February 19, 2023

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/19/realestate/metaverse-vr-housing-market.html

People who read, like, and believe newspapers do so because newspapers reflect a worldview they already hold, and which they probably inherited from their parents.

People who ignore, hate, and disparage newspapers do so because that course of actions reflects a worldview they already hold, and which they probably inherited from their parents.

― Auf Der Martini (Ye Mad Puffin), Monday, February 13, 2023 5:52 AM (one week ago)

this is pretty otm ... I feel like the issue is less about actual influence and more about symbolic representation and whose already existing worldview it is representing ...

_People who read, like, and believe newspapers do so because newspapers reflect a worldview they already hold, and which they probably inherited from their parents.

People who ignore, hate, and disparage newspapers do so because that course of actions reflects a worldview they already hold, and which they probably inherited from their parents.

― Auf Der Martini (Ye Mad Puffin), Monday, February 13, 2023 5:52 AM (one week ago)_

this is pretty otm ... I feel like the issue is less about actual influence and more about symbolic representation and whose already existing worldview it is representing ...

unless there's some kind of empirical evidence that YMP's binary generalization is true, there's no reason to consider yourself an outlier. my parents don't read the NYT

Okay. I have no illusions that I know how the world works. Further, I've been pretty open about how much of my life I've spent ensconced in the operations of legacy print media (not at the NYT but close enough). It's probably more than most people.

At the same time, I have cultivated a carapace of jadedness about its influence (from one perspective). From another perspective I have cultivated a kind of zen humility about its influence, and from still a third perspective a deep skepticism about its influence. To my mind, people are going to do the stuff they are going to do. The arrival of a specific wafer of wood pulp on their doorstep is neither making nor breaking their received opinions. There are larger forces at work, I suspect, in e.g. the parents of table or of rob.

But yeah sure let's excoriate the newspaper, cool cool, a nearly moribund cultural artifact. If it vanished tomorrow (which it very well could), the political attitudes you hate would still exist and flourish.

T - you're an outlier and i <3 you for it

but I think the thing is in terms of political views, I think YMP is correct, the newspaper is going to reinforce the views you already have. There are people who will "engage with content" in an oppositional way ... like, just because you read something regularly doesn't mean you agree with it. ... especially if it's free.

YMP, I guess I'm not sure what your position is? The Times is a rah-rah trumpet for imperialist warfare and seems to think that it has a responsibility to drum up controversy targeting trans people. Does it have some redeeming values, too? Yes, of course, which is why I'm still a subscriber. But failing to hold the newspaper "of record" to a higher standard seems foolish and defeatist.

I had a housemate in college who would regularly get a copy of Parade magazine (from someone else's Sunday paper) just to hateread Marilyn vos Savant.

We were just talking about Marilyn vos Savant at dinner last night, lmfao. I played my parents and husband this excellent song

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uDHgy7AI_8

^ ^ ^ the best Boston punk band of the 90s, anyone who argues otherwise is RONG

YMP, I don't get why you think this thread is a place to root for the complete destruction of the NYT or to lament its magical brainwashing powers, rather than taking notice of its more pernicious and aggravating tendencies or observing new political drifts that correspond to alarming trends beyond the paper. I don't hold those perspectives — mine is essentially that "media effects" are notoriously difficult to prove or disprove, so using that as a frame is pointless — and I'm getting tired of having them projected onto me.

Sorry if that was a bit pissy.

People who read, like, and believe newspapers do so because newspapers reflect a worldview they already hold, and which they probably inherited from their parents.

People who ignore, hate, and disparage newspapers do so because that course of actions reflects a worldview they already hold, and which they probably inherited from their parents.

...

To my mind, people are going to do the stuff they are going to do. The arrival of a specific wafer of wood pulp on their doorstep is neither making nor breaking their received opinions. There are larger forces at work, I suspect, in e.g. the parents of table or of rob.

I agree that the NYT doesn't decisively determine anyone's opinions, so what is your theory of social change? I can't tell where you're coming from between "inherited from parents" and "larger forces". How have views on, say same-sex or interracial marriage, changed so rapidly?

* Not sure if you saw it uphtread, but one aspect of "influence" that is easier to pinpoint is NYT articles being cited in legislation curtailing the rights of trans people. Of course, those legislators would have pursued that agenda regardless, we don't need to debate that, but denying the media play some kind of role in normalizing or legitimating certain views seems dangerous to me.

I guess I'm not sure what your position is?

Table, I don't get why you are having trouble understanding me when I type so very many words, many of which are nearly synonymous with one another:

1. carapace of jadedness

2. a kind of zen humility

3. a deep skepticism

I have been very transparent about my position: it is an amorphous and ambiguous position and I am sticking to it.

Rob I have no beef with you; I am neither rooting nor lamenting. Just saying, see above.

As a former NYT employee I'm in a Facebook group of Times alumni and the discussion there about the paper's many shortcomings is pretty interesting (even if a lot of it is obviously Monday morning quarterbacking, "things were better when I was there," etc etc). Suffice to say, there has never been a shortage of dissension and disagreement within and around the paper about any of its varied offense.

offenses

I'm not sure who's hating and disparaging newspapers as a concept here anyway. Pointing to flaws, errors and failures of American capitalist media isn't pining for a utopia of no media.

xp
Just to clarify YMP: I thought you were characterizing other posters itt as rooting/lamenting — i.e., credulously assuming the NYT exerts a commanding influence over public opinion and therefore hoping it dies — not that you were yourself doing that. Anyway, I think I do understand your perspective, I just don't find it relevant to this thread (milo otm)

there's a real serious target on many marginalized people's backs and one of the biggest publications in media is asking us to understand the feelings of their persecutors or worse, outright widening the target.

when it comes to criticism...unleash your arrows as often as you want.

Ross Douthat is exhausting, boring and unrewarding to people beyond their teen years, btw.

in Scotland it's pronounced Doothoot

ok

backtracking a bit, do I have to have a theory of social change? Is it okay if I don't?

I don't understand society and I don't think I can do very much to control and/or change it. Except in the very local and extremely specific ways that are under my control (e.g., donating, volunteering, voting, speaking, writing, advocating, loving people, helping people, feeding people, etc.). I am deeply humble about my ability to affect society... with good reason.

Just a brief side note: Thomas Friedman emerged from his burrow on Meet The Press this weekend, so that means we'll have six more months (at least) of bullshit.

Has anyone read Jeff Gerth's piece in the Columbia Journalism Review on the NYT's coverage of "Russiagate"? I heard an interview with the author, and have been meaning to read it, but tl;dr. To hear him tell it, Gerth (a former Times reporter himself) has some serious criticisms of the paper's reporting on the whole sordid mess.

xp
I feel like you keep misunderstanding me, which means I'm doing a bad job of communicating with you, YMP. I'll drop it after this, but ftr I didn't mean you were obliged to have a theory about how you yourself can individually change society. I meant: how do you account for broad changes in social attitudes if people inherit their views from their parents? What are (some of) the "larger forces at work" you alluded to?

I certainly don't expect you to have a fully developed sociological explanation of your own devising! But if you're skeptical of the media's role in changing people's minds on issues, what do you see as the forces behind changing viewpoints?

Anyway, we're not in class lol, you don't have to answer, it's obviously a massive question, but that is what I meant and what I was getting confounded by.

I'm *very* suspicious of the motives of anyone who wants to deny or downplay the influence of media, especially right now. furthermore the NYT must be destroyed, no more of this constructive criticism nonsense

as you wish Master Shredder

Rob, it's cool, sorry to present myself as a delicate wisp instead of someone who knows anything about anything. It's one of my flaws, which are numerous.

Anyway, as an actual attempted answerto the question upthread, I think people respond to real stuff that affects them, way more than words on a screen or a page.

My politics - from the cradle - is a politics of empathy. Standard cis het white liberal stuff. Dismiss me as an NPR/Whole Foods progressive if you like.

Tolerance *in theory* tends to evolve and enlarge when it is put into actual practice.

Purely theoretical LGBTQ+ acceptance (for example) expands when you actually have actual trans people right in front of you and actually living in your actual house. (Which I actually do, by the way.)

So yeah, that has been an education. And I am happy to report that engaging with IRL 3D real trans individuals has affected my thinking, shifting it from a vague acceptance to actual allyship.

So yeah that is my theory of social change. And it has almost nothing to do with what the New York Times does or doesn't publish.

At the same time (to Neanderthal's point) it is totally understandable to hold NYT to account and critique it for its lapses. No quarrel with that.

I just don't think it's _creating_ the toxic attitudes. To me, media is a mirror as much as it is a painting.

Has anyone read Jeff Gerth's piece in the Columbia Journalism Review on the NYT's coverage of "Russiagate"?

I'd been meaning to and this prompted me to go give it a scan. I'm not too impressed tbh. I think Gerth has his own axes to grind and he repeatedly seems to take Trump at his word on things and downplays things like the Helsinki press conference (pretending that people's reactions to it were all about one Trump answer that he thinks the media somewhat misinterpreted rather than his bizarrely deferential demeanor throughout, etc.). He also has a very credulous account of how Bill Barr came to write the summary letter of the Mueller report — to read Gerth's account, you'd think it was a fair-minded summary, which is hardly the case.

Sure, the NYT and WaPo and others overplayed some aspects of the Russia-Trump story because the connections were never as clear or as quid-quo as some of the reporting made them seem. On the other hand, it remains true that there was a huge amount of sketchy stuff going on between Trump people and Russians of various agency, as the Mueller report bears out. Gerth's takeaway ultimately is that the Times and WaPo were blinded by hating Trump and abandoned their holy journalistic objectivity, which is why people now don't trust the media. I don't buy it.

He also has a very credulous account of how Bill Barr came to write the summary letter of the Mueller report — to read Gerth's account, you'd think it was a fair-minded summary, which is hardly the case.

This part galled me.