no way NYT

^ ^ ^ 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.

Gerth like the dude who shows up at parties with a douchey smirk and constantly says things like "not to be that guy" when beginning every convo

I just don't think it's _creating_ the toxic attitudes

no but it legitimises them and weakens liberal opposition to the right's attacks.

Yep. For the sake of my blood pressure I should renounce my habit of visiting comment sites, but, boy, every time Ross Asshat and Pamela Priss publish more anti-modernist bilge another Karen gets her zings. The usual "I'm a Democrat, I voted for Joe Biden, BUT."

I think Gerth has his own axes to grind and he repeatedly seems to take Trump at his word on things

Yeah, this came through in the interview. He talked about interviewing Trump and seemed to find him believable, which . . . wow.

Barr's "summary" of the Mueller Report was a true hatchet job--which is exactly why he was appointed in the first place.

Wasn’t Gerth one of the most credulous Iraq War cheerleaders? Why the fuck should his musings on Trump and Russia carry any weight at all?

Ross Asshat and Pamela Priss

morbs would approve

Whatever y'all do, don't read Bret Stephens' anti-mask column today.

My blood pressure went up just reading that sentence.

Oh god ugggh thanks for the heads-up!

I finally had enough with the transphobia and other ridiculousness and canceled my subscription. Shoulda done it a while ago. I stopped listening to NPR news back in the trump years. Holding onto my Washington post subscription - plenty to disagree with but I have lower expectations. Getting less tolerant of bs in my old age.

I love how he gets sad-eyes when the government does public health measures and happy eyes when the government funds war and apartheid in Israel.

Bret Stephens should be forced to eat maggots for three years for just about everything he's ever wrote.

I love after the 2018 election when he was in such a hurry to shit on libs that he wrote how it was a disappointing performance and how they needed to reach across the aisle and then they wound up winning 40 seats and Nate Silver called him a moron basically

Elizabeth Koch is a part of the vilified Koch dynasty. Worrying about what people think pushed her to the brink of insanity.

Now, she wants to help people understand their debilitating "Perception Boxes." She spoke to me for her first big profile:https://t.co/DVKxmifHm8

— Brooks Barnes (@brooksbarnesNYT) February 23, 2023

I would not read that for less than $500 up front.

the end of that article's first arc is a new frontier in cringe -- it's two acts:

I.

Or you may have the opposite reaction: It must be really, really hard — eye roll — to be an heiress to one of the biggest fortunes ever accumulated, who graduated from an Ivy League university (Princeton) and is now married to a successful biotech entrepreneur. They recently vacationed in Bali.

When Ms. Koch first came on my radar, I was firmly in the second camp.

A publicist named Scott Rowe had called to propose an article on Ms. Koch and her nonprofit organization, Unlikely Collaborators, which is all about self-investigation. According to its website, the organization is dedicated to the creation of “provocative experiences that help you face who you think you are.” The site adds, “Our experiences use a process of self-investigation that encompasses principles and practices from eastern and western thought, meditation, psychology, and neuroscience — designed to expand your understanding of self, others, and the whole damned world.”

Oh, brother.

II.

“I know this is a lot to throw at people,” Ms. Koch said, apparently reading my mind. “Let’s go back to Perception Box. That’s where it begins and ends.”

She jumped to her feet and started writing on a white board, calling out each word with a flourish in a demonstration of one of her workshops.

“I don’t matter.”

“I’m not good enough.”

“I’m bad.”

She asked me to envision a person — a writer, perhaps. This person misses deadlines because they are “constantly worrying about making it perfect,” she said. “It has to be better. It has to be better. No, no, no. Not there yet.” That thinking can be painful and ultimately even professionally paralyzing.
Story continues below advertisement
Continue reading the main story

“That person is running a Perception Box story in their head,” she said, “and it’s an obvious one: I’m not good enough.”

I grimaced and told her that I could be that writer.

“Who are you still trying to please, and who are you still rebelling against?” she asked me, now firmly in teacher-student mode.

I squirmed and thought about how it was really stupid of me to say no to that blanket.

“Probably Daddy,” I said, almost in a whisper.

wow person who should be guillotined discovers CBT and mixes it with pop zen bs, so glad to be alive

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/26/opinion/san-francisco-democrats-board-of-supervisors.html

“Even Democrats Like Me (Billionaires) Are Fed Up With San Francisco”

Another variation of the old “I am repulsed by poor people and poor people drug use, save our city”

What It Means to Be Woke
—Ross Douthat

best Madonna single

Trump allies are pressuring Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida to weigh in on the expected indictment.

Never Mind About Ron DeSantis

Ron DeSantis Has a Secret Theory of Trump

jesus christ

Are we all excited by the chance to once more be irritated by NYT Iraq war articles, now that they are running anniversary pieces? We’ve already had one today that had several paragraphs on the CIA without one mention of torture.

it's funny, I was paying for my subscription through Paypal and I removed authorization to charge it like, over a month ago, but never got around to formally cancelling the subscription.

every other day I get emails like "Second to final warning - your subscription will be cancelled", "final warning - we will cancel your subscription if we don't receive payment!", "final warning again, we mean it this time!"....been happening for like a month, daily threats, and still they haven't cancelled it.

It's like cable or the Mafia, you don't get out except feet first.

Check out the kicker in this despicable profile:

Ms. Statler agreed about Judge Kacsmaryk. “I just know he just has a real tender spot for caring for women,” she told The Times, “and particularly women who are pregnant.”

Any article about that judge that doesn't lead with "That piece of shit" is a bad article

What Happened to America? We Asked 12 People in Their 70s and 80s.

that “article” was so typical that it made me laugh— there might as well have been a quote about kicking a ball in the street.

all of them seem to believe that people should just take the jobs that are offered and work them until they die. idiots.

the headline alone feels like a lazy parody of what everyone already hates about their vox populi attempts

cheating b/c I did actually read this one, but was there really no one in editorial who saw this and had a dim recollection that the UK is—infamously I would have thought—not in the EU?

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/27/opinion/microsoft-activision-ftc-antitrust-grail-eu.html

(and yeah their bios should have been enough of a red flag)