NYT Editorial Board Redefines Free Speech for Itself

[Rennadrel]

No, your problem is that they stopped playing to your biases. That's the only problem here. They grew up and realized they had responsibilities beyond being a weird news outlet that would send a reporter to the Westminster Dog Show to cover it while having his first acid trip. Not exactly hard hitting, informative, or meaningful journalism. Fun, sure, but not meaningful.

No, Vice became another rag like BuzzFeed, which is what everyone has been trying to do for the better part of several years. And in doing so, the quality of what they publish has tanked significantly. It has nothing to do with bias and you are dishonest if you think that is the case. I used to read Vice a lot before they started spinning the drain and sacrificing investigative reporting for clickbait and ragebait articles. And pretty much every media site I used to read in my 20's has gone that way. Even BuzzFeed wasn't horrible in its early days, but it definitely went south fast as far as the quality of their published content.

It's why I listen to The Big Story podcast every weekend. Its obviously Canadian focused but does cover stories on an international scale as well. It also doesn't constantly conform to my viewpoints and I don't want it to, I want the facts and I'll make up my own mind how I feel about a story, rather than some two-bit hack trying to invoke an emotional response while being dishonest.

[Endus]

You hear of people that are big names that didnt have their careers destroyed not those that didnt manage to make the best out of a bad situation or werent big enough to withstand a controversy. Survivor bias and all that

We literally don't hear of anyone who's ever been unfairly "cancelled", in this context. You can't bring up examples. Claiming there's some magical silence because of "survivor bias" just demonstrates you don't understand what survivor bias even is.

Most people wont hear the story of Lauren Hough who lost her nomination to a literary prize cuz of a minor spat she had on twitter

https://laurenhough.substack.com/p/a...a-literary?s=r

If she will continue to have a career after this is kinda missing the point. She lost a big opportunity because she got cancelled on twitter for very uncontroversial things she said online. Also I agree with the point somewhat, if you are man being cancelled is kind of a nbd but ppl get harsher on women mostly cuz they expect them to be beings of light and compassion

So a literary award removed her book from consideration due to current social controversy.

That's standard business practice, dude. The award organization doesn't want to invite that controversy. They don't have a bone in that fight.

Hough was not "cancelled", in any respect.

Oh look, here's the book in question, published by Penguin Random House, a NYT bestseller, still available for purchase both on the site and at a host of major retailers;
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/b...-lauren-hough/

You have no idea what the fuck you're even talking about, dude.

[Edge-]

No, Vice became another rag like BuzzFeed, which is what everyone has been trying to do for the better part of several years.

Did I miss all the listicles on Vice? I mean, I don't go there regularly, but I see little in common with Buzzfeed.

It has nothing to do with bias and you are dishonest if you think that is the case.

You misinterpret me. "Bias" in this case is not used as a negative, but rather as a descriptive term. As in "I'm biased towards brunettes" or "I'm biased towards Apple products".

I used to read Vice a lot before they started spinning the drain and sacrificing investigative reporting for clickbait and ragebait articles.

I don't see the same, but investigative reporting is expensive and doesn't get a ton of eyeballs, so it's not surprising that their tact has changed over the years. Online media is extremely competitive.

And pretty much every media site I used to read in my 20's has gone that way.

Maybe it's less "every media outlet has changed" and more "you have changed"? You seem to be the common denominator here.

[postman1782]

Ppl act like cancel culture is nbd and forget that just a few years ago Berkley had riots cuz one speaker students didnt like got invited

And it turns out they were right to get rid of that piece of shit. He turned out to be a fucking Nazi.

[Rennadrel]

You didn't answer my question.



I think you are missing the point. Regardless of how you feel about his opinions, it outraged many conservatives to the point where they tried to 'cancel' him. They did the same thing with Keurig, Target, Nike, Starbucks and many others. My point is that the claim that 'cancel culture' is a product of liberals/leftists is nonsense, as it's just boycotting and has been around for years. You can also go back decades and find articles of people being fired for something they said in public. None of this is new.

Of course it's not new, we've been seeing it from the right since the 70's at least. When you are a public figure, you obviously represent the people who pay your salary. And in sports, those people happen to be the fans who buy tickets. And they don't buy tickets to see one guy try and draw attention to himself. It's all well and good to have your own values and opinions, but most athletes are smart enough to just shut up and do their jobs and they enforce their values in their downtime through charitable work and activism, which is perfectly fine by me and I don't have a problem with that at all.

That whole situation was handled poorly and the league should have done the right thing and supported him, but he also made his own bed when he was told to cut it out. I feel like the league was more in the wrong and should have told the moral busybodies getting upset over it to go pound sand, but Kaepernick knew exactly what he was doing and how much controversy he could cause.

[Edge-]

And they don't buy tickets to see one guy try and draw attention to himself.

The existence of most sports stars disproves this. They're cults of personality. You think LeBron James isn't trying to draw attention to himself?

It's all well and good to have your own values and opinions, but most athletes are smart enough to just shut up and do their jobs and they enforce their values in their downtime through charitable work and activism, which is perfectly fine by me and I don't have a problem with that at all.

Yeah man, these guys should have just shut up and stopped using their platforms to make a political statement that directly relates to who they are as athletes.

[Rennadrel]

Did I miss all the listicles on Vice? I mean, I don't go there regularly, but I see little in common with Buzzfeed.



You misinterpret me. "Bias" in this case is not used as a negative, but rather as a descriptive term. As in "I'm biased towards brunettes" or "I'm biased towards Apple products".



I don't see the same, but investigative reporting is expensive and doesn't get a ton of eyeballs, so it's not surprising that their tact has changed over the years. Online media is extremely competitive.



Maybe it's less "every media outlet has changed" and more "you have changed"? You seem to be the common denominator here.

Maybe I've changed in that I'm more cynical, but unfortunately having a working life doesn't also allow me all the time in the world to more thoroughly enjoy expanding my mind, as well as I feel like I might have deteriorated a bit in my capacity to draw in and retain new information (my brain can only hold so much and right now it's school stuff!). But that's more a me problem. Still, I feel like the good journalism these days is constantly over shadowed by clickbait and ragebait. That's kind of why I like to stick to my one podcast that I have time to listen to because it's investigative and reports on stories more applicable to me as a Canadian or just life in Canada that you don't really hear about from our big networks. Maybe it's not the best way to remain informed about everything but frankly I don't care much about what goes on beyond my own little bubble and the things that impact me directly are the most important to me.

[Edge-]

Still, I feel like the good journalism these days is constantly over shadowed by clickbait and ragebait.

Sure. It still exists and outfits like ProPublica do great work, but the reality is that quality journalism, especially investigative journalism, doesn't pay the bills. It's incredibly expensive, too. So necessarily, for-profit media are disinclined to invest in that when they could pay a bunch of starving writers next to nothing to write wrappers around press releases or scour social media for the latest popular thing (sup Newsweek!).

This is the necessary end to for-profit media, and it's hardly the first time. We last saw this during the Hearst era where yellow journalism was so profitable that it was used to start a war. This is how for-profit media must operate if they're to stay competitive and compete with all the non-journalist companies producing similar content and vying for the same clicks and eyeballs.

But that's a whole other can of worms.

Maybe it's not the best way to remain informed about everything but frankly I don't care much about what goes on beyond my own little bubble and the things that impact me directly are the most important to me.

That's good shit and it's something I'm trying to do more, though my natural inclination to seek out as much information as possible and feel "bad" if I don't hamstrings me. But it also makes me question why you care about this stuff since it's apparently well outside your normal media consumption habits >.>

[Endus]

Maybe I've changed in that I'm more cynical, but unfortunately having a working life doesn't also allow me all the time in the world to more thoroughly enjoy expanding my mind, as well as I feel like I might have deteriorated a bit in my capacity to draw in and retain new information (my brain can only hold so much and right now it's school stuff!). But that's more a me problem. Still, I feel like the good journalism these days is constantly over shadowed by clickbait and ragebait. That's kind of why I like to stick to my one podcast that I have time to listen to because it's investigative and reports on stories more applicable to me as a Canadian or just life in Canada that you don't really hear about from our big networks. Maybe it's not the best way to remain informed about everything but frankly I don't care much about what goes on beyond my own little bubble and the things that impact me directly are the most important to me.

Like, you're literally describing the process of self-radicalization, here.


Also, on a more general point, the press has always sought "clickbait". That's literally the purpose of headlines; to catch your eye and get you curious enough to buy the paper and read the story. That's why "above the fold" was a big fuckin' deal; it meant your headline was on the top surface before anyone bought the paper to read it; you were the story that was meant to bait in buyers. Literally. Explicitly.

All that's changed is the specific media. Before, newspapers and magazines. Now, websites. Otherwise, very little has actually changed, other than now you most often don't actually need to put money down and buy the paper to find out the headline was misleading.

[NED funded]

She got #CANCELED? Where was the outrage and blowback? It seems like her issues on Twitter predate this by a lot - https://fangirlish.com/2021/04/19/la...-book-twitter/

Her issues on twitter? They are literally dogpiling on her for what are at best unprofessional comments made on social media that in most cases no one would have read

Her comment:



The comments of people that dogpile on her:



Not to mention even the article you have linked to me goes on to call out the unfairness of the whole thing:



Whatever I dont want to go too deeply into this one particular controversy cuz its separate from this

And I don't see much beyond her claims that she was #CANCELED rather than the organization seeking to avoid bringing Twitter drama to their awards. They may have nominated her for the shortlist initially, but the organization has every right to remove anyone - or replace anyone - they see fit for whatever reason they choose.

I dont disagree with this lol

Her case is deffo of someone that got a great opportunity pulled from beneath her cuz she was #canceleld

Seems more like it was here ongoing behavior that dates back years that may have resulted in this. Which is entirely her fault, and she could alter her behavior any time to stop seeking out drama and make her a more attractive candidate for awards.

Literally telling women to shut up lol

Nah dude, peoples opportunities should not be beholden to the whims of randos on social media

Lamda cites a more recent issue with her position on another book, but I don't see much there for either side of that argument.

They go on about why on a separate NYT article



Sorry dude, but she is deffo being defined by what rando people online say and not what she has actually said and done, which seems the perfect example of cancel culture.

A violent protest*

After the peaceful protest was co-opted by the black bloc*

All subsequent events were in direct response to provocation from right wing groups that specifically wanted a fight.

It was a violent protest that people started cuz they didnt like a speaker. It seems hard for people to even acknowledge it was bad lol

[Endus]

Her issues on twitter? They are literally dogpiling on her for what are at best unprofessional comments made on social media that in most cases no one would have read

Her comment:



The comments of people that dogpile on her:

This says literally nothing except that whoever tweeted the second likely has a lot more followers than Hough to begin with. No evidence of any "dogpile".

I dont disagree with this lol

Her case is deffo of someone that got a great opportunity pulled from beneath her cuz she was #canceleld

Again, the NYT-bestselling author whose book in question is still on store shelves everywhere has not, in any respect whatsoever, been "cancelled".

They go on about why on a separate NYT article

Sorry dude, but she is deffo being defined by what rando people online say and not what she has actually said and done, which seems the perfect example of cancel culture.

That's . . . literally not what that article said. Here's the full thing (and it's weird that you use images of text, rather than direct quotes and a lack of direct links); https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/21/b...-literary.html

They explained she was removed from consideration over hostile and aggressive tweets. Specifically, apparently, transphobic attacks. She got removed from consideration literally because of the things "she has actually said and done", not random online complaints without basis.

Your own source completely contradicts your every claim on this point. You're lying. Badly.

[Edge-]

That's a lot of screenshots, including a lot of very selectively edited ones, and not a lot of links going back to anything. This is the internet, sir, nobody believes screenshots without links.

[Beefhammer]

When did americans have such a right? [to not fear being shamed or shunned]

In the early 2000s where speaking against war in Afghanistan or Iraq made people label you a traitor?

Never. That's the point. The opinion piece is just conservatives pissed they can't be openly bigoted without repercussions.

[NED funded]

That's a lot of screenshots, including a lot of very selectively edited ones, and not a lot of links going back to anything. This is the internet, sir, nobody believes screenshots without links.

Most are taken from the linked article

https://fangirlish.com/2021/04/19/la...-book-twitter/

And here is the NYT article

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/21/b...-literary.html

[Endus]

That's a lot of screenshots, including a lot of very selectively edited ones, and not a lot of links going back to anything. This is the internet, sir, nobody believes screenshots without links.

To be fair, at least with the second, he didn't cut out relevant context.

He just literally lied about the contents his own image pulled out for study, the statement by Lambda Literary explicitly saying that Hough's consideration for the award was removed because of hostile transphobic attacks against trans allies and critics who were transgender. So, literally pulled out of consideration because of her own actions and choices, not some baseless public outcry.

And I repeat; she's in no way "cancelled", as her book's clearly still available all over the place.

- - - Updated - - -

Most are taken from the linked article

https://fangirlish.com/2021/04/19/la...-book-twitter/

Even more precious; that article points out she engaged in a lot of abuse towards fans who dared to rate her book at anything less than 5 stars, and made a whole lot of really offensive tweets about it, including comparing getting a 1-star review to being raped.

She's lashing out because she had to face a modicum of criticism about her work. Over and above the transphobic attacks that actually got her consideration for the Lammys removed.

[Beefhammer]

The existence of most sports stars disproves this. They're cults of personality. You think LeBron James isn't trying to draw attention to himself?





Yeah man, these guys should have just shut up and stopped using their platforms to make a political statement that directly relates to who they are as athletes.

These are the same people that criticized Michael Jordan for not doing anything with is stature to help Black on Black crime in Chicago back in the day and have no problem when celebs use their stature to push conservative agendas.

[uuuhname]

it was a violent protest that people started cuz they didnt like a speaker.

don't think it's gone unnoticed how you aren't saying who it was they were protesting. a famously racist, white nationalist, provocateur whose most notable contribution to "the discourse" was how Catholic priests raping young boys isn't inherently a bad thing... which, of course, is why no one talks about him anymore. except sus people who feel the need to go to bat for him.

[NED funded]

don't think it's gone unnoticed how you aren't saying who it was they were protesting. a famously racist, white nationalist, provocateur whose most notable contribution to "the discourse" was how Catholic priests raping young boys isn't inherently a bad thing... which, of course, is why no one talks about him anymore. except sus people who feel the need to go to bat for him.

Cuz I dont care who its being done to? Violent protests are rarely justifiable and in this case it happened cuz they didnt like a speaker

[uuuhname]

Cuz I dont care who its being done to? Violent protests are rarely justifiable and in this case it happened cuz they didnt like a speaker

of all the people, and instances you could have picked, you picked Milo Yinaplous. a white nationalist provocateur, whose greatest contribution to literally anything besides pushing white nationalism, was that statutory rape is sometimes okay. like, if it's not acceptable to protest him who can we protest? no one? is that the brilliant point you're trying to make here?

[Endus]

of all the people, and instances you could have picked, you picked Milo Yinaplous. a white nationalist provocateur, whose greatest contribution to literally anything besides pushing white nationalism, was that statutory rape is sometimes okay. like, if it's not acceptable to protest him who can we protest? no one? is that the brilliant point you're trying to make here?

But if we talk about how there was violence, we can ignore the question of whether the protest was justifiable in and of itself.

This tactic's a form of tone-policing. It's morally empty and completely dishonest.