Any thoughts on Bari Weiss's resignation letter?

[public hermit]

You might know that Bari Weiss resigned from the Times. Her resignation letter makes some pretty astounding claims. To wit...

"Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.

My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are."

Resignation Letter — Bari Weiss

I know this feeds claims made by the right concerning the media. But could those claims have some truth to them? Is there a new orthodoxy that will not tolerate dissent? Are we seeing a "tyranny of the masses" via Twitter? Maybe that's not the best way to put it. I don't know.

 

[public hermit]

By the by, her link is hit or miss. I don't know what that means. Maybe a lot of traffic?

 

[thecolorsblend]

Her resignation has earned her support from the left and the right. She self-identifies as a moderate. That's a common trick among those who claim to be alienated from something. Position oneself in the middle and paint the opposition as extremists. But in her case, that looks to actually be true. Her policy preferences appear to be mostly left of center but these days, that's pretty moderate. Basically nothing she believes would've been controversial in her party ten years ago.

Kudos to you for asking if she's factually correct. Most people seem to be saying variations on either "See, I told you!" or "She's a Nazi, cancel her". Her claims seem to have considerable merit to them.

I doubt her public resignation will change anything but at least she's writing a first draft of history in her own way.

 

[public hermit]

I doubt her public resignation will change anything but at least she's writing a first draft of history in her own way.

Nicely put.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Is this the way we would expect a reputable news source to operate?

 

[Halbhh]

Would answer if I'd read her even once, but I read almost zero in the op-ed opinion section of any site expect for occasional guest writer pieces where they have expertise.

 

[Halbhh]

Is this the way we would expect a reputable news source to operate?

News isn't op-ed (op-ed is opinion pieces).

 

[iluvatar5150]

I don't trust anybody on either side of arguments like this. I read (or at least peruse) the NYT op-ed page and overall, it's pretty uninspiring, so I'm a bit surprised it would draw this much concern.

 

[public hermit]

Is this the way we would expect a reputable news source to operate?

I wouldn't think so. I mean, I grew up with this naïve idea that news was supposed to be objective. Granted, as @Halbhh points out, it is the opinion section. But, one would think that is all the more reason to allow for a wide spectrum of ideas. It is opinion, after all.

 

[Halbhh]

I wouldn't think so. I mean, I grew up with this naïve idea that news was supposed to be objective. Granted, as @Halbhh points out, it is the opinion section. But, one would think that is all the more reason to allow for a wide spectrum of ideas. It is opinion, after all.

I speculate she was hired for that. For that range of opinion. They'll look for another unique conservative to replace her.

 

[public hermit]

I speculate she was hired for that. For that range of opinion. They'll look for another unique conservative to replace her.

They did. She brought that up in the letter. But, she is not conservative, conservative. What am I trying to say? Oh, she is not CF conservative.

But, does that matter? Assuming that her accusations are accurate (who knows?), it is a toxic environment that doesn't allow for dissent. More importantly, it points to a larger problem. Is the Times dictated to by the whims of Twitter, or those on Twitter who matter to them? That's strange. Right?

 

[Halbhh]

They did. She brought that up in the letter. But, she is not conservative, conservative. What am I trying to say? Oh, she is not CF conservative.

But, does that matter? Assuming that her accusations are accurate (who knows?), it is a toxic environment that doesn't allow for dissent. More importantly, it points to a larger problem. Is the Times dictated to by the whims of Twitter, or those on Twitter who matter to them? That's strange. Right?

Well...."2 or 3 witnesses"... to use an old standard. Though I feel that op-ed page is like a distant world. Dusty.

I prefer The Atlantic for just interesting viewpoint writing. Haven't read Times op-eds extensively since I was in my 20s. Gosh, that's Ages ago. But even then it was...less interesting, a chore. Not my kind of writing, to defend dead, static viewpoints. They do struggle not to be that way though I think, from hearing Brooks.

 

[public hermit]

Haven't read Times op-eds extensively since I was in my 20s. Gosh, that's Ages ago. But even then it was...less interesting, a chore.

Haha, well that is less than a glowing endorsement.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

News isn't op-ed (op-ed is opinion pieces).

...and that is just about all the NYT is these days.

 

[Caliban]

You might know that Bari Weiss resigned from the Times. Her resignation letter makes some pretty astounding claims. To wit...

"Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.

My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are."

Resignation Letter — Bari Weiss

I know this feeds claims made by the right concerning the media. But could those claims have some truth to them? Is there a new orthodoxy that will not tolerate dissent? Are we seeing a "tyranny of the masses" via Twitter? Maybe that's not the best way to put it. I don't know.

As a subscriber and reader of the New York Times, I was shocked to hear Bari's experience of workplace hostility and antisemitism. The paper does have a strong left slant--but not radical. For radical, try reading the Daily Kos or Jacobin. I am constantly pleased with the times level of journalistic depth when covering wold news or scientific matters in a way that provides access and understanding to laymen like myself. Recently, the times published and the regretted the article by Tom Cotton: Send in The Troops. Cottons position was idiotic, but the Times was right to publish it. Boldness in the face of controversy is laudable. The answer to incorrect speech, is more speech. Apparently the Times is rethinking that long held truism. I will continue to support and read the New York Time, and I will continue to balance my opinions with other sources of information. Isn't that what we all know we should do?

 

[disciple Clint]

You might know that Bari Weiss resigned from the Times. Her resignation letter makes some pretty astounding claims. To wit...

"Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.

My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are."

Resignation Letter — Bari Weiss

I know this feeds claims made by the right concerning the media. But could those claims have some truth to them? Is there a new orthodoxy that will not tolerate dissent? Are we seeing a "tyranny of the masses" via Twitter? Maybe that's not the best way to put it. I don't know.

Her resignation letter makes some pretty astounding claims. Astounding??? It confirms what is well known

 

[public hermit]

Her resignation letter makes some pretty astounding claims. Astounding??? It confirms what is well known

It is well known that her colleagues called her a Nazi and a racist? Or, to what are you referring?

 

[disciple Clint]

It is well known that her colleagues called her a Nazi and a racist? Or, to what are you referring?

the info about the NYT is known

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I don't know, but I don't trust a word at face-value anymore - especially if it hails from the US. I used to trust the BBC more, but that is also waning. It often is not what is said, but the manner it is presented. For instance, I recently read about the decapitation of Cecil Rhodes statue, and the article on BBC said: "Cecil Rhodes, a white supremacist," as if that is the shorthand for a complex figure. Or look at all this politics around medicine or science, made plain in Covid 19.

I don't think it is possible for humans to be fully objective, but I feel most news outlets have abandoned even a well-meaning attempt while still paying lip-service. Better to read things keeping their bias in the back of your mind, and obviously, the best would be those publications that are upfront about it - like the Economist, say. Let us just stop pretending, and then journalists will naturally gravitate to groups that more closely correspond with their viewpoint.

 

[Halbhh]

As a subscriber and reader of the New York Times, I was shocked to hear Bari's experience of workplace hostility and antisemitism. The paper does have a strong left slant--but not radical. For radical, try reading the Daily Kos or Jacobin. I am constantly pleased with the times level of journalistic depth when covering wold news or scientific matters in a way that provides access and understanding to laymen like myself. Recently, the times published and the regretted the article by Tom Cotton: Send in The Troops. Cottons position was idiotic, but the Times was right to publish it. Boldness in the face of controversy is laudable. The answer to incorrect speech, is more speech. Apparently the Times is rethinking that long held truism. I will continue to support and read the New York Time, and I will continue to balance my opinions with other sources of information. Isn't that what we all know we should do?

I've read dozens of news sites (not just 20), extensively, and was a newspaper reader already at age 11, which was very long ago -) ) and this overall summary of the bias of various media is pretty on target:

The Chart, Version 3.0: What, Exactly, Are We Reading? - Ad Fontes Media
If not clear enough, it may be bigger at the site.

The chart is pretty accurate in terms of relative position with the upward axis being more informative, more facts. As you see, the NYTimes is centrist, and highly informative. I agree with this chart for about 20 sites I know fairly well.

Also they have a newer version here:
Media Bias Chart 6.0: Downloadable Image and Standard License - Ad Fontes Media

@public hermit
@Quid est Veritas?
@disciple Clint
@SoldierOfTheKing
@iluvatar5150

My strong preference is for more information, more accurate facts and detail, to better gauge situations.

Among some of my favorite souces are Reuters, The Economist, ABC, NYTimes, NPR, and several others up there in that area.

This is just long experience talking. I'm older and am less interested in opinion. I want accurate interesting details, factual.

Also, if anyone says that the NYTimes is 'liberal' in it's news (note, news is not opinion on the OpEd page, but the factual reporting in the news section), they are probably lacking a wide perspective that would help them gauge well. NYTimes news reporting is excellent.

But, nevertheless, I recommend to all people that they read informative news from at least 3 or more sites that don't echo each other. I prefer at least a dozen when it's an important situation, but that's unusual I think.