The more facts which come out, about the "pitching" of Tom Cotton's op-ed and the process before publishing, the way it was published seems less and less defensible.
The more facts which come out, about the "pitching" of Tom Cotton's op-ed and the process before publishing, the way it was published seems less and less defensible.
anyone think maybe Tom Cotton was playing chess with the NYT and he was at least two moves ahead of them?
The more facts which come out, about the "pitching" of Tom Cotton's op-ed and the process before publishing, the way it was published seems less and less defensible.
The more facts which come out, about the "pitching" of Tom Cotton's op-ed and the process before publishing, the way it was published seems less and less defensible.
There are people defending its publication?
How about - The "it's the news publishing process" excuse seems less plausible.
Hmmm. There’s probably more splaining and scusing that could be done, but the audience sounds restless.
maybe it wasn't your intent, but your responses have come off as defensive, if not actually defending.
And in general you seem unwilling to concede that any of the criticisms posted in this thread have merit. I may not have gone to journalism school or worked at a newsroom, but a lot of my criticisms are the same as those of professional media critics. And presumably at least a few of them are or have been professional journalists at one time. That doesn't mean those critics are always right either. But it tells me my assessments aren't coming from some far out extreme.
maybe it wasn't your intent, but your responses have come off as defensive, if not actually defending.
And in general you seem unwilling to concede that any of the criticisms posted in this thread have merit. I may not have gone to journalism school or worked at a newsroom, but a lot of my criticisms are the same as those of professional media critics. And presumably at least a few of them are or have been professional journalists at one time. That doesn't mean those critics are always right either. But it tells me my assessments aren't coming from some far out extreme.
I reply to issues raised in this thread a lot less often than I don’t. When I do, it’s because I think I can shed some light. Others here are free to take me or leave me, and to have the last word. (Though fair warning: If they write things like “I’m not sure how,” it might only encourage me.) If that intent has failed to come through, my bad.
It’s important to understand what the people around the president are thinking. But if they’re honest about what they’re thinking, it’s usually too disgusting to engage with. This creates a crisis for traditional understandings of how the so-called marketplace of ideas functions. It’s a subsidiary of the crisis that has the country on fire.
The third sentence above is pretty much what db and I have been saying throughout this thread. Trump and his minions, by virtue of their constant gaslighting and lying, as well as morally repugnant ideas have exploited the traditional journalistic paradigm to their advantage. And if Michelle Goldberg is calling this a crisis for the marketplace of ideas, I'm not going to disagree.
I reply to issues raised in this thread a lot less often than I don’t. When I do, it’s because I think I can shed some light. Others here are welcome to take them or leave them, and to have the last word. (Though fair warning: If they write things like “I’m not sure how,” it might only encourage me.) If that intent has failed to come through, my bad.
I'll stop using the rhetorical "I'm not sure how." Because usually I'm pretty sure I know how, but I try to leave some room for being wrong.
I've had to stop using that too, to avoid triggering.
I have to admit that writing on this board for so many years has sharpened my writing, but I still make a few of the same mistakes regularly. Like leaving out qualifiers or using absolutes. Because then if someone finds one exception to a claim, it's a "gotcha!"
So all in all, while it's frustrating at times to end up in an argument about semantics, it's a good thing to learn to be more precise with language.
It’s important to understand what the people around the president are thinking. But if they’re honest about what they’re thinking, it’s usually too disgusting to engage with. This creates a crisis for traditional understandings of how the so-called marketplace of ideas functions. It’s a subsidiary of the crisis that has the country on fire.
The third sentence above is pretty much what db and I have been saying throughout this thread. Trump and his minions, by virtue of their constant gaslighting and lying, as well as morally repugnant ideas have exploited the traditional journalistic paradigm to their advantage. And if Michelle Goldberg is calling this a crisis for the marketplace of ideas, I'm not going to disagree.
I may not have gone to journalism school or worked at a newsroom, but a lot of my criticisms are the same as those of professional media critics. And presumably at least a few of them are or have been professional journalists at one time.
A follow-up note on this, in the hope of shedding some light for anyone still with me: It’s widely acknowledged in larger newsrooms that reporters and primary editors are nearly always, let’s say, unattuned to the editing and production processes that occur after the copy leaves their hands. They’ll joke that how it gets published might as well be magic to them. (They have their own work to worry about.) So in general, when those processes are part of a discussion, there’s a decent chance that even critics and other observers with newspaper experience have hit a blind spot.
A follow-up note on this, in the hope of shedding some light for anyone still with me: It’s widely acknowledged in larger newsrooms that reporters and primary editors are nearly always, let’s say, unattuned to the editing and production processes that occur after the copy leaves their hands. They’ll joke that how it gets published might as well be magic to them. (They have their own work to worry about.) So in general, when those processes are part of a discussion, there’s a decent chance that even critics and other observers with newspaper experience have hit a blind spot.
this is what I mean by seeming defensive.
If I go to a restaurant and the dinner tastes like crap, does it really matter that the chef him or herself rarely if ever touches the food that ends up on my plate?
Why do media critics need to concern themselves with internal processes when critiquing the final product?
They don’t. They can simply say The Times or The Post or MSNBC or Fox News or whoever screwed up. If that’s all you need or want to know, those media critics are for you.
Unless you’re determined to get me to agree, or you’re not sure I don’t know how you feel, you were free to just ignore it.
ETA: Your other sentence missed the point of my comment, which was meant to be something to consider about media critics in general.
I didn't miss that. I just don't think that so-called blind spot is important. If my meal sucks, do I really need to hear the excuse of of what went awry in the kitchen? Just make my dinner better the next time.
False equivalence. Cheese souffle should taste delicious, be light and fluffy each and every time, served warm not cold. But not every opinion piece (for example) is of equal value or objectivity, nor should they be. That’s the value of having opinion pieces.
If something isn’t right with food, either don’t buy it, or find out what went wrong. Don’t just trash the reputation of the establishment first. if you don’t like what a publication does, don’t renew your subscription. Enough of them are closing anyway. (and yes, I understand the very deep ethical issues you’re discussing. Still not the same as dinner)
I didn't miss that. I just don't think that so-called blind spot is important. If my meal sucks, do I really need to hear the excuse of of what went awry in the kitchen? Just make my dinner better the next time.
Don’t mind me. If the consensus is that this thread is for discussing what ends up on the plate, and you don’t want to hear about the kinds of excuses things that go on in the kitchen, I can see myself out. Bon appetit.
False equivalence. Cheese souffle should taste delicious, be light and fluffy each and every time, served warm not cold. But not every opinion piece (for example) is of equal value or objectivity, nor should they be. That’s the value of having opinion pieces.
If something isn’t right with food, either don’t buy it, or find out what went wrong. Don’t just trash the reputation of the establishment first. if you don’t like what a publication does, don’t renew your subscription. Enough of them are closing anyway. (and yes, I understand the very deep ethical issues you’re discussing. Still not the same as dinner)
Or we can criticize in the hope that they do better. And thanks to social media, they are doing better. So why shouldn't we continue to call out these news orgs if they're listening and trying to improve?
Perfect.
I'll give you one thing. Impressive chutzpah on your part in accusing anyone else in this thread of "'splaining."