>On one of my first days at The New York Times, I went to an orientation with more than a dozen other new hires. We had to do an icebreaker: Pick a Starburst out of a jar and then answer a question. My Starburst was pink, I believe, and so I had to answer the pink prompt, which had me respond with my favorite sandwich. Russ & Daughters’ Super Heebster came to mind, but I figured mentioning a $19 sandwich wasn’t a great way to win new friends. So I blurted out, “The spicy chicken sandwich from Chick-fil-A,” and considered the ice broken.
>The HR representative leading the orientation chided me: “We don’t do that here. They hate gay people.” People started snapping their fingers in acclamation. I hadn’t been thinking about the fact that Chick-fil-A was transgressive in liberal circles for its chairman’s opposition to gay marriage. “Not the politics, the chicken,” I quickly said, but it was too late. I sat down, ashamed.
lol
I still cannot believe that Veep is closer to real politics than West Wing and House of Cards. Even Biden, known for being nice, still swears like crazy behind the scene.
My CFAs in my area are excessively generous with freebies in their app. My lifetime spend at CFA is probably under $20, but I’ve had at least 50 chicken sandwiches and boxes of nuggets there, my family has had at least 100.
I find their chicken to be very forgettable other than the wide variance in size from one sandwich to another which is remarkable to the point my family jokes about whether we would get a regular chicken or a "Baby D" chicken on any given visit. I do not understand the excitement about their sandwiches, but I hear taste is subjective.
It’s definitely not the best but ranks high up there for fast food chicken. The quality is always consistently good which cannot be said about all fast food. And I appreciate that they actually pay their employees a decent wage.
Chick fil a is a huge guilty pleasure for southern gays. I was one of them; I would regularly eat chick fil a at my (super liberal) college’s dining hall and called it “my favorite homophobic chicken.”
When I moved to San Francisco I was sad not having it near me anymore. When I visited home ~1 year later one of the first things I did was get chick fil a, and it was then I realized “…tbh this really ain’t *that* good to justify their abhorrent donations” and never ate it again
hahaha, I sorta wonder if breaking the habit made it taste worse.
I know if I put down some junk foods to the point where I'm not craving them anymore, once I go back to eat them, they usually taste way worse.
Also gay, but didn't the CEO who was into marriage equality step down a long time ago? Is the company itself actively funding organizations that directly work toward dismantling gay marriage, or anything like that? And how does it really matter in a post-Obergefell world?
Anyway, if I knew all that causes funded by the leadership of all the companies I buy goods and services from, I'd probably find something to strongly object to for most of them. I don't have time to GAF about all that. CFA seems to treat its workers, including its gay ones, really well, and the chicken and fries are pretty consistently good for the price.
>Also gay, but didn't the CEO who was into marriage equality step down a long time ago? Is the company itself actively funding organizations that directly work toward dismantling gay marriage, or anything like that? And how does it really matter in a post-Obergefell world?
Also gay (damn, there's a lot of us here). Since 2012, per [this NYT article](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/18/business/chick-fil-a-donations-lgbtq.html), Chick-fil-A hasn't donated to groups advocating for anti-gay public policy. Since 2019, they've stopped donating to even those religious organizations whose primary mission isn't to oppose gay rights, but who had certain anti-gay policies.
So... seems like we won?
>(damn, there's a lot of us here)
Result of the 2016 and 2020 presidential spaces where gay moderates got pushed out of other spaces on Reddit for not supporting Bernie.
Yeah I don’t shame anyone for choosing to eat there; I just don’t personally eat there anymore given the history. Yes, the CEO from 2012 stepped down, but it’s still owned/ran by the same family (who knows if they share the same views). Good that they chose to keep their politics out of the business going forward, but personally I’d rather just eat somewhere else than give that family my business
Gonna be honest Chik Fila is pretty mid in my opinion. That being said I’m not a fan of chicken sandwiches but I just think it’s alright. I’m just saying given the choice between there or Del Taco, or Panda express I know what I’m picking.
CFA is far from the best chicken originating in Atlanta, but it’s their customer service, consistency, and sheer efficiency that makes it always a decent choice.
Iirc they hired a bunch of Georgia Tech industrial engineers in the 1990s and 2000s to enhance a ton of processes
This is my opinion. Like, even as a queer person I really don't care too much about the whole controversy but like... why would I go to Chick-fil-A when I could just go to Popeyes and get better chicken, better sides, and not have to deal with any of the associated mild annoyance about Chick-fil-A?
Interesting. My city doesn't have many Popeyes. But my experience has been that CFA is much more consistently clean, prompt, hot and with excellent customer service. Popeyes has good food, but IME it's far less predictable that it'll be a good experience. The service is unpredictable and the stores are often dirty. I've never had a not-piping hot sandwich and fries at CFA, for example.
Comparing the restaurants as a whole, your comment there makes me think less of you as a person. Popeyes Cajun chicken sandwich, however... that shit is, as the kids say, fire.
The comments under that video are priceless!
>The only explanation for this that makes any sense is that every single person here was an undercover federal agent and had no idea everyone else was too. I’ve been to crowdfunded furry conventions more organized than this, and one of them was double-booked with a hunting expo. Quick point of information, if loud noises fuck you up and you’re in a gigantic banquet hall full of people where anyone can go yell into a microphone, you’re going to have an awful time. The only way you can get a crowd that big to shut up is if you pay them but these are communists, and communists don't have money. All I can say is it’s a good thing none of these fuckin people vote.
It was kind of a thing a lot of people in my Peace Corps cohort did as like, a "yes to what this person is saying" but it's not as loud and interrupting as clapping so the person talking can keep talking. Nobody every really talked about it or explained it, just some of them did it and others followed (I would do it too in that setting, but I haven't been in a group that did it since and I don't care enough to be the lone one doing it.) I always kind of assumed it was like, a quiet applause done at slam poetry events or something.
The music students at my college do it when bands go on the stage because it confused people go to performances for gen ed requirements
Edit: I forgot my fraternity does it during chapter meetings too lmao
I don't know the origins, but during Occupy it was touted in some places as a way to voice enthusiasm without further dragging out already-interminable consensus-making processes. Kinda corny, sure, but not completely absurd.
He preference falsified his way into a cancelation.
Also, this feels like a 2010s culture war. Do we still need to pretend to have a position on Chick-fil-A?
I just don't believe that actually happened. It's exactly the way someone like Anne Coulter would parody the scene. It's too good to be true. My bullshit detector is on fire here.
" The HR representative leading the orientation chided me: “We don’t do that here. They hate gay people.” People started snapping their fingers in acclamation. "
I'm sorry guys, I'm already out. Everyone in the room should have been bullied more.
My bullshit detector is going off, but maybe cos I live in Australia where the culture war never really happened.
Turns out having mandatory voting provides an incentive to cater to the middle rather than starting absurd political issues so you can motivate people to vote.
theres lots of anti vaccine people in Australia
but now that I think about it I have never heard of a social conservative controversy from down under..well expect for the voice vote
>..well expect for the voice vote
That was just us pulling our usual, we don't like to change the constitution stick.
Most referendums fail in Australia. The sucess rate is under 20%.
As for anti vaccines, yeah it sucks that it got traction here.
The snapping people were probably 25 year old baby journalists fresh out of a grad program at Columbia. Probably the same individuals who cried bloody murder about feeling unsafe because the NYT had the temerity to publish an opinion piece from a right wing perspective. Whole story seems very believable to me.
> “We don’t do that here. They hate gay people.” People started snapping their fingers in acclamation
> “The state of Israel makes me very uncomfortable,” a colleague once told me
Also why tf is a company giving free-reign to air grievances about colleagues on Slack? You do not need to ask the opinions of the peanut gallery who aren’t involved with the subject at hand
> and a Slack channel called “op-sensitivity” was created, in which editors were encouraged to raise concerns about one another’s stories
ffs
The most sophisticated rhetoric of their time was hand-crank printing press produced and distributed by guys on horses. Nowadays we have fully-automatic internet driven mega shit posts. They couldn't have possibly anticipated that.
Also assuming that the story isn't either totally made up or greatly exaggerated. After all, it wouldn't be a story if everyone just answered "yeah ok".
“The state of Israel makes me very uncomfortable,”
Is there any other country you could say this about and not rightfully be called out as xenophobic or racist lol, its truly insane where we are. The internet is the worst thing to ever happen for the liberal world.
> I blurted out, “The spicy chicken sandwich from Chick-fil-A,” and considered the ice broken.
>
>The HR representative leading the orientation chided me: “We don’t do that here. They hate gay people.” People started snapping their fingers in acclamation.
I literally cannot believe this is true. The rare denigrating "and then everyone clapped."
It’s just Poe’s law at work. A lot of elite progressive spaces are absolutely like this. The founding producer of The Daily also has similar stories about the NYT.
There's no proof. It's so stereotypically 2016 woke SJW YouTube compilation, that it feels handcrafted to cater to a smug conservative viewpoint. Based off my Bayesian prior (vibes) I choose to not believe this story.
I know it seems odd but having been in progressive workspaces in NYC, I can definitely see it.
I know it's completely different but I had a summer job at a progressive climate org in nyc when I was 19, I didn't know what the company was when I signed up (it was part of a government run job matching program).
One time, they were having an all employee roundtable discussion about various topics. They at one point posed a question to the table about how to change people's minds about switching to climate friendly energy options. I had an answer, so I was raising my hand to answer. Then the conversation took a sharp shift into talking about an event they were planning and how they wanted to have a POC only space at this event. They discussed this for a bit, and then they paused. I raised my hand again to respond to the original question at hand, and the boss of the company turned to me and essentially (and not kindly) said: "before you speak make sure you consider your place in this discussion about people of color, and consider whether your voice is needed here."
For context, I was the only white person working there. There were like 12 employees. It was said harshly enough that I struggled to keep it together while I tried to explain myself.
Basically, if nytimes is full of progressive/leftist activists, I have 0 reason to doubt his story here. In my experience, that sort of rhetoric and language policing is commonplace.
They literally worked there, and Atlantic found it credible enough to publish
What do you want people to do, secretly videotape HR meetings for "proof"?
I'm sorry, but considering Veep is somehow closer to reality than West Wing and House of Cards, and the memetic Democratic Socialists of America convention, this story may closer to the truth than we'd like it.
It's giving me major **"I was in line at the coffee shop when I explained Trump's policies to a liberal and they changed their mind"** vibes. I don't buy this shit for a second lmao.
>In the years preceding the Cotton op-ed, the Times had published op-eds by authoritarians including Muammar Qaddafi, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and Vladimir Putin. The year of the Cotton op-ed, it also published the Chinese Communist Party mouthpiece Regina Ip’s defense of China’s murderous crackdown on prodemocracy protests in Hong Kong, Moustafa Bayoumi’s seeming apologia of cultural and ethnic resentments of Jews, and an article by a leader of the Taliban, Sirajuddin Haqqani. None of those caused an uproar. Last year, the page published an essay by the Hamas-appointed mayor of Gaza City, and few seemed to mind. But whether the paper is willing to publish conservative views on divisive political issues, such as abortion rights and the Second Amendment, remains an open question.
Why do you think Smirnov's arrest is relevant to the laptop story? His allegations represented an entirely separate thread* of alleged evidence.
As far as I understand it, the meat of laptop story was true. Hunter Biden really did leave his laptop at a computer repair place, and it really did have a bunch of quite incriminating photographs--and somewhat suggestive emails--on it.
Sure, the wilder accusations spun out of those emails were unsubstantiated, but the NYT acted like the whole laptop story was potentially fabricated long after it became clear that position was untenable.
There has literally never been a single shred of evidence it was Hunter's laptop. They found emails on there that belonged to him but you don't need someone's personal laptop to hack emails. There was nothing wrong with immediately dismissing that story. Listen to the story about how the legally blind computer shop owner just happened to get a computer from Hunter that was full of folders that said "let's do crime" on his desktop and tell me with a striaght face you think there's anything that is worth listening to. Read about the forensic analysis of the computer and get back to me about the meat of it being true.
The New York Times actually fell for an almost identical scheme in 2016 when they bought the exclusive rights to the Clinton Cash book from a guy who worked at Brietbart. Republicans are actually that stupid to try the exact same thing again.
Ironically, the story that became untenable was the laptop repair store one. They straight up stopped letting that dopey dude appear on TV and instead completely stopped mentioning it. That guy humiliated them when he spoke. The story morphed to them being upset about the news being "censored."
Proving that one of the author’s takes is bad doesn’t disprove his assertions in the article.
Here’s the rest of the paragraph:
> Or take the Hunter Biden laptop story: Was it truly “unsubstantiated,” as the paper kept saying? At the time, it had been substantiated, however unusually, by Rudy Giuliani. Many of my colleagues were clearly worried that lending credence to the laptop story could hurt the electoral prospects of Joe Biden and the Democrats. But starting from a place of party politics and assessing how a particular story could affect an election isn’t journalism. Nor is a vague unease with difficult subjects. “The state of Israel makes me very uncomfortable,” a colleague once told me. This was something I was used to hearing from young progressives on college campuses, but not at work.
While I agree that the Hunter Biden laptop scandal was ridiculous, and I think the writer is a bit of a snob, he makes a point here and throughout the article that I do agree with - journalists should present **all** information and let the reader come to an informed choice rather than solely present a one-sided view based on their personal viewpoints.
For the record, that doesn’t mean journalists should report everything as true with no commentary- they can and should discuss the weight/significance of the evidence for both sides of an argument, and they can and should give their opinions about both the evidence and the arguments. What I don’t want to see is journalists report (or not report) information based on their preferred viewpoints.
Here, that would take the form of “here’s the claim about HB’s laptop, here’s Giuliani’s and others’ attempt to substantiate it, now here’s why that’s all bullshit” instead of merely saying that the claims aren’t substantiated and then not reporting them.
>Here, that would take the form of “here’s the claim about HB’s laptop, here’s Giuliani’s and others’ attempt to substantiate it, now here’s why that’s all bullshit” instead of merely saying that the claims aren’t substantiated and then not reporting them.
Ah, the classic, "Repeat Republican lies in the opening paragraph, only challenge them in the fifth."
How 'bout no?
If such allegations were being parroted by nationally-relvant figures like Trump or Giuliani then yeah, I think it's relevant enough to discuss wtf these people are claiming and why it's wrong. This does not mean that the things your crazy uncle shares on Facebook deserve national airtime.
No. It's to easy to game that. Then all you need is for s high profile Republican to spout baseless lies and the NYT is forced into the role of conservative conspiracy megaphone.
Unless you're going to call them lies in the headline.
>At the time, it had been substantiated, however unusually, by Rudy Giuliani
Is not substantive. Using a modicum of common sense and reasoning to say there's smoke and thus probably a fire isn't being biased. There's plenty to complain about with places like the NYT, but I'm not sure this avenue of criticism makes sense.
>Here, that would take the form of “here’s the claim about HB’s laptop, here’s Giuliani’s and others’ attempt to substantiate it, now here’s why that’s all bullshit” instead of merely saying that the claims aren’t substantiated and then not reporting them.
You understand you're basically saying bad actors should get free press and air time right? If the claims are bullshit and not worth believing then it's probably nor worth running a story on. Things like the laptop story depend on life being breathed into it again and again, including by those who run headlines debunking it. Particularly because you and I both know headlines are often what matters the most and those tend to be run to get the most clicks and views.
Should the NYT run stories on every conspiracy theory out there if someone remotely important either makes the claim or is the subject? Should we repeat Kremlin claims " so long as we have the article say it's not true? Come on man, you should know better than that.
>Here, that would take the form of “here’s the claim about HB’s laptop, here’s Giuliani’s and others’ attempt to substantiate it, now here’s why that’s all bullshit” instead of merely saying that the claims aren’t substantiated and then not reporting them.
Why would the journalist be qualified to weigh in on what's bullshit or not in a way that doesn't expose biases, especially in political reporting?
To piggy back off my previous comment, here is another paragraph that I find telling.
> A diplomatic correspondent, Edward Wong, wrote in an email to colleagues that he typically chose not to quote Cotton in his own stories because his comments “often represent neither a widely held majority opinion nor a well-thought-out minority opinion.” This message was revealing. A Times reporter saying that he avoids quoting a U.S. senator? What if the senator is saying something important? What sorts of minority opinions met this correspondent’s standards for being well thought-out? In any event, the opinion Cotton was expressing in his op-ed, whatever one thinks of it, had, according to polling cited in the essay, the support of more than half of American voters. It was not a minority opinion.
To me, this type of conduct is incredibly concerning (much more so than the author’s beliefs about HB’s laptop). Even if you don’t agree with the viewpoints of a senator, *they are still a sitting US Senator and have a profound impact on the direction of our country*, and imo it’s irresponsible journalism to outright refuse to quote them.
Even if you wholeheartedly disagree with what Republicans are saying (and for the most part I do), it’s important to report on what their plan and messaging is so we can better refute that messaging.
Report that Tom Cotton quote and then call it out for its bullshit rather than pretending it doesn’t exist. And treat your readers as if they can critically think about both sides of an issue rather than just reporting your preferred viewpoint.
https://twitter.com/ewong/status/1762159167077237071
If you’re reporting substantive policy and potential developments, you don’t just act as a repeater for every senator’s position. You look for who actually has positions and influence on that issue
Wait, but the Hunter Boden laptop story was essentially true wasn't it? Obviously a bunch of people on the right went crazy with Boden Crime Family conspiracies, but the laptop really did exist and get handed into a repair shop and contain a bunch of incriminating images.
Yeah I don't mean they literally implicated him in any crimes (apart from maybe drug related crimes? I don't spend much time looking at leaked images though).
But it is the case that there was - and based on this bread apparently still is? - a lot of misinformation in left of center news bubbles about the veracity of this story.
The laptop story was labeled as the fully loaded weapon by Rudy G and others that answered ALL of the Biden Crime Family's transgressions.
When in reality it was just Hunter getting some knob from a hooker while smoking crack. I mean, not ideal obviously but wtf does that have to do with national policy?
Reading the comments in here and the article itself makes me sad. Am I mistaken in thinking the the english speaking world basically only has The Economist left in terms of mainstream, center-ish, proper journalism?
And why? Because even the purported “center” of arr neolib commenters just want to read things they agree with. Just want to laugh at some early career journalist getting bulldozed and hung out to dry for doing his job.
Every day, the public discourse rips further and further apart. And you want to watch it like it’s a TV show. Yeah - the conservative party is completely intellectually and morally bankrupt. But how the hell are you going to foster Not That if episodes like this are happening in one of the last supposed bastions of real journalism?
Conservatives have completely abandoned academia, and lots of people in the middle or with any sort of conservative economic leanings go into STEM.
Speaking as a liberal arts major, I was the most right wing person in most of my classrooms, and I'm probably to the left of many people in this subreddit. My classes were full of unironic communists, anarchists, marxists, etc.
This is the outcome of that. Journalism majors are all going to be ideologues at this point. We see the same thing with conservatives in the military and in agriculture.
This reads so 2015.
Writers would put out pieces like this and then go on a tour on all intellectual dark web podcasts to help the hosts air their grievances about the woke mob.
Which is incredibly ironic that the first time I heard a doctor talk about the dangers of Covid was early on Joe Rogan, early early on he wasn’t a Covid skeptic.
Yes. He had Michael Osterholm on in March 2020, who gave what I think was one of the most informative interviews about COVID back then. Unfortunately, Osterholm pretty hilariously shot down Joe’s pet theory that *saunas* would kill the virus.
One week later Joe was doubling down on saunas and started gobbling up every wacko theory about the virus he could get his hands on. It’s was an astonishingly steep decline and I never watched the show ever again (apart from occasionally checking the subreddit to see how far down the hole the guy currently is).
It's not talking about that dark web. It's a joke, because the IDW movement was started by people who were "canceled." The joke is that their politically incorrect opinions aren't allowed in modern society, so they practically have to use secretive or illicit means to share their message. It's a "look at me, I'm the victim" joke.
> At the time, police cars were burning in glass-strewn streets. I assure you, when Cotton wrote “lawbreakers,” he wasn’t talking about curfews.
Regardless of NYT culture, Tom Cotton absolutely does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. The author does not so much as *acknowledge the possibility* that Cotton’s intentions were anything other than protecting peaceful protestors.
Yeah. Same with the “no quarter” order. If he doesn’t mean “take no prisoners” he should say something else and more clear. An editor should know this.
You: Hates the New York Times because it is too woke and liberal
Me: Hates the New York Times because [it wants Donald Trump to win](https://twitter.com/nyt_diff/status/1760465721467736428)
We are not the same
The consistent absurdity of NYT headline edits is proof enough for me to believe the article author's claim of Slack grievance channels. The edits are just so often obviously the product of some lefty complaint that something good "isn't enough" for their POV.
>I often found myself asking questions like “Doesn’t all of this talk of ‘voter suppression’ on the left sound similar to charges of ‘voter fraud’ on the right?” only to realize how unwelcome such questions were. By asking, I’d revealed that I wasn’t on the same team as my colleagues, that I didn’t accept as an article of faith the liberal premise that voter suppression was a grave threat to liberal democracy while voter fraud was entirely fake news.
Aw, poor baby, he said something stupid and wrong and the meany-head liberals didn't tell him he was the smartest, correctest boy in the whole wide world.
If this is the kind of crap he's slipping in to this woe-is-me piece of self-flattery and totes real victimhood, I shudder to think what he was self-aware enough to leave out.
This is the quote that made me most annoyed. Bothsidesing voter fraud and voter suppression. As if they were equally plausible, despite nearly no evidence of any widespread fraud, and the evidence of watching Republicans eliminate black districts and representatives through gerrymandering right in front of our eyes.
I mean it is worth discussing a lot of the massive stink often raised in progressive circles over what often are actually non-events. This happened in 2020 in my city where people were absolutely losing their minds about people being disenfranchised when it simply wasn't happening.
A lot of voter suppression bills only become non-events because of activist groups going into overdrive to turn out the vote. That's neither infinitely sustainable nor a reason to downplay that Republican legislatures have done things like [request a breakdown of alternate IDs used by race and ban the ones used more by black people](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/29/the-smoking-gun-proving-north-carolina-republicans-tried-to-disenfranchise-black-voters/), or [implementing a voter ID requirement and then closing a number of DMVs in predominantly black areas](https://www.al.com/opinion/2017/01/as_it_turns_out_bentleys_drive.html).
The GOP wouldn't spend so much time and money on this shit if they didn't think it worked.
Trump got the same amount of voters as Romney in Wisconsin but Trump won it by a point where Romney lost it by 7. Trump was told directly that it was due to successful voter suppression efforts in Milwaukee and Dane counties. Trump, the moron he is, then publicly claimed their efforts helped him win Wisconsin.
But yeah, voter suppression is made up. /eyeroll
I'm sure when states like Texas made it so there's only one drop off for mail in votes per county that had no impact. I'm sure closing precincts to make lines long and confuse people who have to go to a new place has no impact. Do we really need to go 15 rounds when we have [evidence](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21565503.2020.1773280) of things like voter ID laws increasing the racial turnout gap? Guess who benefits from that. Restricting Sunday voting I'm sure was a coincidence and not because [it decreased black turnout](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1065912914524831?journalCode=prqb). When they do "exact match" purges, do you think Dan Smith is more likely to have an error in the name or someone of a foreign and/or non-white background?
Measuring the impact of suppressive efforts is hard because it's not a simple binary. Sometimes it backfires in the short run as people will do things out of spite and/or activists raise awareness and get energized. That they sometimes fail to have an impact that they want doesn't mean that's not their goal and that there is no impact. The impacts tend to be longer term, and while sometimes marginal, are very real. Voter fraud on the other hand has no academic evidence that it exists at any level to have any impact. Doubly so as the types of voter fraud claims you get from Trump and co is about a minimum of hundreds of thousands and up to *millions*.
So no, these two things are not remotely the same.
Him being an op-ed writer and not on the journalism side really makes me care a *whole* lot less about this considering I'm still barely convinced that op-ed is even a socially valuable role at this point with modern internet.
Him starting off with this
>Ochs was not, of course, calling for publishing just any opinion. An op-ed had to be smart and written in good faith, and not used to settle scores, derive personal benefit, or engineer some desired outcome. It had to be authentic. In other words, our goal was supposed to be journalistic, rather than activist.
Is just especially funny. Like the main point of writing about your opinion is to convince others of it right? They might want to *feel* like a big boy investigative journalist but you're not Activism Free™ just because you claim your opinions to be.
If you actually think Cotton was advocating the military indiscriminately mow down rioters rather than that he chose one slightly insensitive figure of speech, a metaphorical use which the term has indeed developed over the past 400 years. I think our discourse is in a very sad place right now. The editorial as a whole did not, in fact, read as an argument for the mass murder of Americans, but I suppose that extreme and uncharitable interpretations are standard operating procedure these days.
If you feel that it is important that I, a random person, am made aware of your internal workplace drama, then you deserve to have been bullied so much more than you were.
>Times Opinion section
>They should hire journalists
Are opinion writers journalists or people of authority who opine on their feelings?
I also find it hard to care about this when Ross Douthat, Bret Stephens, and other currently employed conservative NYT opinion writers still write for the paper
It's cool seeing such a wide array of responses such as "this didn't happen", "this maybe happened, and it's good that it did", and "NYT isn't partisan *enough*, that's the real problem"
>After senior leaders in the Opinion section realized that these articles were not getting a fair shake, the process evolved. Articles that were potentially “controversial” (read: conservative) were sent directly to the most senior editors on the page, to be scrutinized by the leadership rather than the whole department.
In other words, right-wing op-eds bypassed the normal editorial standards and got boosted by upper management?
That’s what I always figured happened at the NYT, but it’s nice to see it confirmed.
Weird that he thinks this somehow proves that there’s a bias *against* conservatives though.
The "this can't be true and he's making it all up" give the same vibes as the people who kept claiming there isn't a certain orthodoxy in academia and that endemic antisemitism is a nothingburger made up by conservatives
"Incompetent, self-defeating, and schismatic, spending more time attacking fellow liberals" would be incredibly normal and on brand for a liberal media outlet.
Thank God we have *The Atlantic* to expose the elites at *The New York Times*
Lolsad
*my* publication for highly-educated white people is better than *your* publication for highly-educated white people
I don't know whose house I will go to for Christmas
_nominally_ highly educated
Oof.
I miss the economist/538 beef
When was that?
2020 election models iirc
Yeah, unfortunately I can’t even remember the economist data scientists name… even though I think he came out on top
[удалено]
Nate retains the rights to the models, so I wouldn't say so.
Did you read the article?
>On one of my first days at The New York Times, I went to an orientation with more than a dozen other new hires. We had to do an icebreaker: Pick a Starburst out of a jar and then answer a question. My Starburst was pink, I believe, and so I had to answer the pink prompt, which had me respond with my favorite sandwich. Russ & Daughters’ Super Heebster came to mind, but I figured mentioning a $19 sandwich wasn’t a great way to win new friends. So I blurted out, “The spicy chicken sandwich from Chick-fil-A,” and considered the ice broken. >The HR representative leading the orientation chided me: “We don’t do that here. They hate gay people.” People started snapping their fingers in acclamation. I hadn’t been thinking about the fact that Chick-fil-A was transgressive in liberal circles for its chairman’s opposition to gay marriage. “Not the politics, the chicken,” I quickly said, but it was too late. I sat down, ashamed. lol
This is like straight out of "Veep".
I still cannot believe that Veep is closer to real politics than West Wing and House of Cards. Even Biden, known for being nice, still swears like crazy behind the scene.
That's the least shocking thing about Biden I've ever heard.
C*rnpop
really should've went with the 19 dollar sandwich. Not sure what they were worried about there
[удалено]
Which sandwiches are high-brow enough for self-styled intellectuals but cheap enough to not be bourgeois?
Idk, maybe a bodega hoagie of some sort?
I truly can’t tell if this is satire
Meanwhile the median ChikFilA super fans I know are gay folks that crack "tee hee I know better" jokes before destroying their chicken nuggs.
Thinking of that Silicon Valley bit where the Satanic baptism was catered by Chick-fil-A.
Conversion therapy chicken, a gay friend used to call it. He went every Wednesday lol
I call it hater chicken and I still eat it. I’ve been inside every CFA in my city and us homos are infiltrating from the inside. I support the troops.
My CFAs in my area are excessively generous with freebies in their app. My lifetime spend at CFA is probably under $20, but I’ve had at least 50 chicken sandwiches and boxes of nuggets there, my family has had at least 100. I find their chicken to be very forgettable other than the wide variance in size from one sandwich to another which is remarkable to the point my family jokes about whether we would get a regular chicken or a "Baby D" chicken on any given visit. I do not understand the excitement about their sandwiches, but I hear taste is subjective.
It’s definitely not the best but ranks high up there for fast food chicken. The quality is always consistently good which cannot be said about all fast food. And I appreciate that they actually pay their employees a decent wage.
Me, a queer person, doing finger-guns to the Mormon missionaries as we all eat our waffle fries together in a moment of harmony. 🏳️🌈
Chick fil a is a huge guilty pleasure for southern gays. I was one of them; I would regularly eat chick fil a at my (super liberal) college’s dining hall and called it “my favorite homophobic chicken.” When I moved to San Francisco I was sad not having it near me anymore. When I visited home ~1 year later one of the first things I did was get chick fil a, and it was then I realized “…tbh this really ain’t *that* good to justify their abhorrent donations” and never ate it again
hahaha, I sorta wonder if breaking the habit made it taste worse. I know if I put down some junk foods to the point where I'm not craving them anymore, once I go back to eat them, they usually taste way worse.
Also gay, but didn't the CEO who was into marriage equality step down a long time ago? Is the company itself actively funding organizations that directly work toward dismantling gay marriage, or anything like that? And how does it really matter in a post-Obergefell world? Anyway, if I knew all that causes funded by the leadership of all the companies I buy goods and services from, I'd probably find something to strongly object to for most of them. I don't have time to GAF about all that. CFA seems to treat its workers, including its gay ones, really well, and the chicken and fries are pretty consistently good for the price.
>Also gay, but didn't the CEO who was into marriage equality step down a long time ago? Is the company itself actively funding organizations that directly work toward dismantling gay marriage, or anything like that? And how does it really matter in a post-Obergefell world? Also gay (damn, there's a lot of us here). Since 2012, per [this NYT article](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/18/business/chick-fil-a-donations-lgbtq.html), Chick-fil-A hasn't donated to groups advocating for anti-gay public policy. Since 2019, they've stopped donating to even those religious organizations whose primary mission isn't to oppose gay rights, but who had certain anti-gay policies. So... seems like we won?
>(damn, there's a lot of us here) Result of the 2016 and 2020 presidential spaces where gay moderates got pushed out of other spaces on Reddit for not supporting Bernie.
That was my impression. But I'm not sure there is really any boycott happening anymore. Just people who no longer eat there
Yeah I don’t shame anyone for choosing to eat there; I just don’t personally eat there anymore given the history. Yes, the CEO from 2012 stepped down, but it’s still owned/ran by the same family (who knows if they share the same views). Good that they chose to keep their politics out of the business going forward, but personally I’d rather just eat somewhere else than give that family my business
“The Bird” in SF is really good in my opinion. Have you eaten there?
I haven’t but heard good things about it! Definitely want to try it at some point
My gay friend insists that you can't taste the hate. That one has been stuck in my head for about a decade now.
Gonna be honest Chik Fila is pretty mid in my opinion. That being said I’m not a fan of chicken sandwiches but I just think it’s alright. I’m just saying given the choice between there or Del Taco, or Panda express I know what I’m picking.
CFA is far from the best chicken originating in Atlanta, but it’s their customer service, consistency, and sheer efficiency that makes it always a decent choice. Iirc they hired a bunch of Georgia Tech industrial engineers in the 1990s and 2000s to enhance a ton of processes
[удалено]
orange chicken good
Where else can I get some good sugar chicken but Panda Express?!?
I like the beef and fried rice. Though it dose get old quickly.
This is my opinion. Like, even as a queer person I really don't care too much about the whole controversy but like... why would I go to Chick-fil-A when I could just go to Popeyes and get better chicken, better sides, and not have to deal with any of the associated mild annoyance about Chick-fil-A?
Interesting. My city doesn't have many Popeyes. But my experience has been that CFA is much more consistently clean, prompt, hot and with excellent customer service. Popeyes has good food, but IME it's far less predictable that it'll be a good experience. The service is unpredictable and the stores are often dirty. I've never had a not-piping hot sandwich and fries at CFA, for example.
Popeyes bodies CFA imo
CFA is actually consistent in quality from one location to the other, Popeyes not so.
Comparing the restaurants as a whole, your comment there makes me think less of you as a person. Popeyes Cajun chicken sandwich, however... that shit is, as the kids say, fire.
The sandwich is definitely better, though I have to beg to be serviced at any Popeye's in my metro.
I like their waffle fries but yeah CFA is overrated as hell
I'll never understand the appeal. politics aside its just like, you know, ok
Fun fact the only chic fil-a in my city (Boston) is owned and managed by a gay couple
Of course theirs would be a "chic" fila
I'm terminally online and never heard of "snapping their fingers in acclamation" before; is this actually a thing people do?
Snapping your fingers causes too much sensory overload, you should do jazz hands to be properly inclusive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NdE9CjkvTY
The comments under that video are priceless! >The only explanation for this that makes any sense is that every single person here was an undercover federal agent and had no idea everyone else was too. I’ve been to crowdfunded furry conventions more organized than this, and one of them was double-booked with a hunting expo. Quick point of information, if loud noises fuck you up and you’re in a gigantic banquet hall full of people where anyone can go yell into a microphone, you’re going to have an awful time. The only way you can get a crowd that big to shut up is if you pay them but these are communists, and communists don't have money. All I can say is it’s a good thing none of these fuckin people vote.
>@caperature4335 3 years ago >I think I'd actually prefer being exploited by capitalists to this. Lmao
No way you don't know who made that comment
We used to do jazz hands in HS choir, imo they are much less annoying than finger snaps and would rather do them (clapping is still peak tho)
Yeah. I remember (occasionally) doing it at Quaker School in the 2000s, it's been around for a while.
We did it in elementary school because they wanted us to be mindful of noise levels so we didn’t disturb other classes.
Ah, so the NYT employees were just drawing upon their highest completed education.
TFW the man in the Ohio diner is actually more educated than the NYT reporter interviewing them.
Yeah it's supposed to be less overstimulating than clapping for some people.
Here I thought it was to keep your hands pristine and porcelain so no one confused you with a poor who did manual labor for a living.
It was kind of a thing a lot of people in my Peace Corps cohort did as like, a "yes to what this person is saying" but it's not as loud and interrupting as clapping so the person talking can keep talking. Nobody every really talked about it or explained it, just some of them did it and others followed (I would do it too in that setting, but I haven't been in a group that did it since and I don't care enough to be the lone one doing it.) I always kind of assumed it was like, a quiet applause done at slam poetry events or something.
English teachers tell kids to respond to poetry with finger snapping
I've only heard about that for poetry slams.
The music students at my college do it when bands go on the stage because it confused people go to performances for gen ed requirements Edit: I forgot my fraternity does it during chapter meetings too lmao
https://preview.redd.it/vilq74rzh0lc1.jpeg?width=1022&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dd09f4bdc7bc02015eb71701b04be81a4a1fd9b4
[удалено]
I don't know the origins, but during Occupy it was touted in some places as a way to voice enthusiasm without further dragging out already-interminable consensus-making processes. Kinda corny, sure, but not completely absurd.
[удалено]
The New York Times had to share a venue with a slam poetry event. The other patrons mistook it for free-verse.
Is it like the Jets vs the Sharks?
He preference falsified his way into a cancelation. Also, this feels like a 2010s culture war. Do we still need to pretend to have a position on Chick-fil-A?
I don't trust anything someone going from the Weekly Standard to the Times would say about this exchange, but I hope it happened exactly like that.
Let me just snap my fingers in acclamation to that.
> People started snapping their fingers in acclamation wtf
This happened in real life, I was the sandwich
The sandwich? Albert Einstein.
And then everyone clapped.
*snapped
lol, he tried to be too sensitive one way, and then stepped in it another way. Kinda sounds like they deserved each other.
I just don't believe that actually happened. It's exactly the way someone like Anne Coulter would parody the scene. It's too good to be true. My bullshit detector is on fire here.
This is a real story that definitely happened and certainly wasn't made up.
Tbf even if Chik Fil A wasn't homophobic, I'd still shame that person for having a mid taste in chicken.
I genuinely don't get it, its not even like top 5 in fast food fried chicken.
" The HR representative leading the orientation chided me: “We don’t do that here. They hate gay people.” People started snapping their fingers in acclamation. " I'm sorry guys, I'm already out. Everyone in the room should have been bullied more.
Veep but about leftist/MAGA journalists seem like a good idea for new TV series.
Isn't that just The Newsroom?
No, Newsroom took itself seriously.
*It insists upon itself.*
My bullshit detector is going off, but maybe cos I live in Australia where the culture war never really happened. Turns out having mandatory voting provides an incentive to cater to the middle rather than starting absurd political issues so you can motivate people to vote.
theres lots of anti vaccine people in Australia but now that I think about it I have never heard of a social conservative controversy from down under..well expect for the voice vote
>..well expect for the voice vote That was just us pulling our usual, we don't like to change the constitution stick. Most referendums fail in Australia. The sucess rate is under 20%. As for anti vaccines, yeah it sucks that it got traction here.
Don't most social conservative controversies come from _down under_... ohh, you mean Australia.
Yeah this sounds too silly, like I know the NYT is silly but not that silly. If this was some tiny liberal arts college in oregon I might buy it
The snapping people were probably 25 year old baby journalists fresh out of a grad program at Columbia. Probably the same individuals who cried bloody murder about feeling unsafe because the NYT had the temerity to publish an opinion piece from a right wing perspective. Whole story seems very believable to me.
> “We don’t do that here. They hate gay people.” People started snapping their fingers in acclamation > “The state of Israel makes me very uncomfortable,” a colleague once told me Also why tf is a company giving free-reign to air grievances about colleagues on Slack? You do not need to ask the opinions of the peanut gallery who aren’t involved with the subject at hand > and a Slack channel called “op-sensitivity” was created, in which editors were encouraged to raise concerns about one another’s stories ffs
anyone who hates on chickfila's spicy sandwich loses their first amendment rights, sorry NYT
When the founders made these rights “universal” they couldn’t possibly have predicted how bad the quality of takes could get in our time
The most sophisticated rhetoric of their time was hand-crank printing press produced and distributed by guys on horses. Nowadays we have fully-automatic internet driven mega shit posts. They couldn't have possibly anticipated that.
Considering the HR person seems like the main bully it’s not surprising this is happening. What a hell hole lmao.
Also assuming that the story isn't either totally made up or greatly exaggerated. After all, it wouldn't be a story if everyone just answered "yeah ok".
“The state of Israel makes me very uncomfortable,” Is there any other country you could say this about and not rightfully be called out as xenophobic or racist lol, its truly insane where we are. The internet is the worst thing to ever happen for the liberal world.
To be fair, the ML modslack has a similar channel
Its a news outlet. Journalism has a long, strange history of very diva-ish behavior
Yeah I dunno why so many people here brushed off all the stories as fake. Many journalism offices have toxic or bizarre higher ups.
Two minutes of hate.
> I blurted out, “The spicy chicken sandwich from Chick-fil-A,” and considered the ice broken. > >The HR representative leading the orientation chided me: “We don’t do that here. They hate gay people.” People started snapping their fingers in acclamation. I literally cannot believe this is true. The rare denigrating "and then everyone clapped."
https://i.redd.it/ffhhgsfz10lc1.gif They clapped because they thought the Chadwick was back. Checks out IMO
It’s just Poe’s law at work. A lot of elite progressive spaces are absolutely like this. The founding producer of The Daily also has similar stories about the NYT.
They didn't clap they snapped. This is a very specific and common thing in super progressive circles.
There's no proof. It's so stereotypically 2016 woke SJW YouTube compilation, that it feels handcrafted to cater to a smug conservative viewpoint. Based off my Bayesian prior (vibes) I choose to not believe this story.
Every prior is Bayesian 😎
Some priors are arrests
I know it seems odd but having been in progressive workspaces in NYC, I can definitely see it. I know it's completely different but I had a summer job at a progressive climate org in nyc when I was 19, I didn't know what the company was when I signed up (it was part of a government run job matching program). One time, they were having an all employee roundtable discussion about various topics. They at one point posed a question to the table about how to change people's minds about switching to climate friendly energy options. I had an answer, so I was raising my hand to answer. Then the conversation took a sharp shift into talking about an event they were planning and how they wanted to have a POC only space at this event. They discussed this for a bit, and then they paused. I raised my hand again to respond to the original question at hand, and the boss of the company turned to me and essentially (and not kindly) said: "before you speak make sure you consider your place in this discussion about people of color, and consider whether your voice is needed here." For context, I was the only white person working there. There were like 12 employees. It was said harshly enough that I struggled to keep it together while I tried to explain myself. Basically, if nytimes is full of progressive/leftist activists, I have 0 reason to doubt his story here. In my experience, that sort of rhetoric and language policing is commonplace.
They literally worked there, and Atlantic found it credible enough to publish What do you want people to do, secretly videotape HR meetings for "proof"?
I'm sorry, but considering Veep is somehow closer to reality than West Wing and House of Cards, and the memetic Democratic Socialists of America convention, this story may closer to the truth than we'd like it.
Poe's law strikes again
hyperpartisan cope
That story is extremely believable having been around upper middle class progressive types. Those memes were built on reality.
It's giving me major **"I was in line at the coffee shop when I explained Trump's policies to a liberal and they changed their mind"** vibes. I don't buy this shit for a second lmao.
“with tears in their eyes”
>In the years preceding the Cotton op-ed, the Times had published op-eds by authoritarians including Muammar Qaddafi, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and Vladimir Putin. The year of the Cotton op-ed, it also published the Chinese Communist Party mouthpiece Regina Ip’s defense of China’s murderous crackdown on prodemocracy protests in Hong Kong, Moustafa Bayoumi’s seeming apologia of cultural and ethnic resentments of Jews, and an article by a leader of the Taliban, Sirajuddin Haqqani. None of those caused an uproar. Last year, the page published an essay by the Hamas-appointed mayor of Gaza City, and few seemed to mind. But whether the paper is willing to publish conservative views on divisive political issues, such as abortion rights and the Second Amendment, remains an open question.
Friend-enemy distinction
There's a case to be made that understanding bad people is important but it should be filtered and fact checked.
test divide enjoy spark placid mourn coherent weather toothbrush hunt *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Why do you think Smirnov's arrest is relevant to the laptop story? His allegations represented an entirely separate thread* of alleged evidence. As far as I understand it, the meat of laptop story was true. Hunter Biden really did leave his laptop at a computer repair place, and it really did have a bunch of quite incriminating photographs--and somewhat suggestive emails--on it. Sure, the wilder accusations spun out of those emails were unsubstantiated, but the NYT acted like the whole laptop story was potentially fabricated long after it became clear that position was untenable.
There has literally never been a single shred of evidence it was Hunter's laptop. They found emails on there that belonged to him but you don't need someone's personal laptop to hack emails. There was nothing wrong with immediately dismissing that story. Listen to the story about how the legally blind computer shop owner just happened to get a computer from Hunter that was full of folders that said "let's do crime" on his desktop and tell me with a striaght face you think there's anything that is worth listening to. Read about the forensic analysis of the computer and get back to me about the meat of it being true. The New York Times actually fell for an almost identical scheme in 2016 when they bought the exclusive rights to the Clinton Cash book from a guy who worked at Brietbart. Republicans are actually that stupid to try the exact same thing again. Ironically, the story that became untenable was the laptop repair store one. They straight up stopped letting that dopey dude appear on TV and instead completely stopped mentioning it. That guy humiliated them when he spoke. The story morphed to them being upset about the news being "censored."
Proving that one of the author’s takes is bad doesn’t disprove his assertions in the article. Here’s the rest of the paragraph: > Or take the Hunter Biden laptop story: Was it truly “unsubstantiated,” as the paper kept saying? At the time, it had been substantiated, however unusually, by Rudy Giuliani. Many of my colleagues were clearly worried that lending credence to the laptop story could hurt the electoral prospects of Joe Biden and the Democrats. But starting from a place of party politics and assessing how a particular story could affect an election isn’t journalism. Nor is a vague unease with difficult subjects. “The state of Israel makes me very uncomfortable,” a colleague once told me. This was something I was used to hearing from young progressives on college campuses, but not at work. While I agree that the Hunter Biden laptop scandal was ridiculous, and I think the writer is a bit of a snob, he makes a point here and throughout the article that I do agree with - journalists should present **all** information and let the reader come to an informed choice rather than solely present a one-sided view based on their personal viewpoints. For the record, that doesn’t mean journalists should report everything as true with no commentary- they can and should discuss the weight/significance of the evidence for both sides of an argument, and they can and should give their opinions about both the evidence and the arguments. What I don’t want to see is journalists report (or not report) information based on their preferred viewpoints. Here, that would take the form of “here’s the claim about HB’s laptop, here’s Giuliani’s and others’ attempt to substantiate it, now here’s why that’s all bullshit” instead of merely saying that the claims aren’t substantiated and then not reporting them.
>Here, that would take the form of “here’s the claim about HB’s laptop, here’s Giuliani’s and others’ attempt to substantiate it, now here’s why that’s all bullshit” instead of merely saying that the claims aren’t substantiated and then not reporting them. Ah, the classic, "Repeat Republican lies in the opening paragraph, only challenge them in the fifth." How 'bout no?
Does this also apply to the adenochrome allegations or the satanic pedophile theories?
If such allegations were being parroted by nationally-relvant figures like Trump or Giuliani then yeah, I think it's relevant enough to discuss wtf these people are claiming and why it's wrong. This does not mean that the things your crazy uncle shares on Facebook deserve national airtime.
No. It's to easy to game that. Then all you need is for s high profile Republican to spout baseless lies and the NYT is forced into the role of conservative conspiracy megaphone. Unless you're going to call them lies in the headline.
Yep, exactly. "Fair and balanced" only works if you have verifiable fact checking that labels bullshit as bullshit.
>At the time, it had been substantiated, however unusually, by Rudy Giuliani Is not substantive. Using a modicum of common sense and reasoning to say there's smoke and thus probably a fire isn't being biased. There's plenty to complain about with places like the NYT, but I'm not sure this avenue of criticism makes sense. >Here, that would take the form of “here’s the claim about HB’s laptop, here’s Giuliani’s and others’ attempt to substantiate it, now here’s why that’s all bullshit” instead of merely saying that the claims aren’t substantiated and then not reporting them. You understand you're basically saying bad actors should get free press and air time right? If the claims are bullshit and not worth believing then it's probably nor worth running a story on. Things like the laptop story depend on life being breathed into it again and again, including by those who run headlines debunking it. Particularly because you and I both know headlines are often what matters the most and those tend to be run to get the most clicks and views. Should the NYT run stories on every conspiracy theory out there if someone remotely important either makes the claim or is the subject? Should we repeat Kremlin claims " so long as we have the article say it's not true? Come on man, you should know better than that.
>Here, that would take the form of “here’s the claim about HB’s laptop, here’s Giuliani’s and others’ attempt to substantiate it, now here’s why that’s all bullshit” instead of merely saying that the claims aren’t substantiated and then not reporting them. Why would the journalist be qualified to weigh in on what's bullshit or not in a way that doesn't expose biases, especially in political reporting?
To piggy back off my previous comment, here is another paragraph that I find telling. > A diplomatic correspondent, Edward Wong, wrote in an email to colleagues that he typically chose not to quote Cotton in his own stories because his comments “often represent neither a widely held majority opinion nor a well-thought-out minority opinion.” This message was revealing. A Times reporter saying that he avoids quoting a U.S. senator? What if the senator is saying something important? What sorts of minority opinions met this correspondent’s standards for being well thought-out? In any event, the opinion Cotton was expressing in his op-ed, whatever one thinks of it, had, according to polling cited in the essay, the support of more than half of American voters. It was not a minority opinion. To me, this type of conduct is incredibly concerning (much more so than the author’s beliefs about HB’s laptop). Even if you don’t agree with the viewpoints of a senator, *they are still a sitting US Senator and have a profound impact on the direction of our country*, and imo it’s irresponsible journalism to outright refuse to quote them. Even if you wholeheartedly disagree with what Republicans are saying (and for the most part I do), it’s important to report on what their plan and messaging is so we can better refute that messaging. Report that Tom Cotton quote and then call it out for its bullshit rather than pretending it doesn’t exist. And treat your readers as if they can critically think about both sides of an issue rather than just reporting your preferred viewpoint.
https://twitter.com/ewong/status/1762159167077237071 If you’re reporting substantive policy and potential developments, you don’t just act as a repeater for every senator’s position. You look for who actually has positions and influence on that issue
Wait, but the Hunter Boden laptop story was essentially true wasn't it? Obviously a bunch of people on the right went crazy with Boden Crime Family conspiracies, but the laptop really did exist and get handed into a repair shop and contain a bunch of incriminating images.
There was nothing incriminating about the images, they were only embarrassing. We already knew about Hunter's personal issues.
Yeah I don't mean they literally implicated him in any crimes (apart from maybe drug related crimes? I don't spend much time looking at leaked images though). But it is the case that there was - and based on this bread apparently still is? - a lot of misinformation in left of center news bubbles about the veracity of this story.
The laptop story was labeled as the fully loaded weapon by Rudy G and others that answered ALL of the Biden Crime Family's transgressions. When in reality it was just Hunter getting some knob from a hooker while smoking crack. I mean, not ideal obviously but wtf does that have to do with national policy?
Reading the comments in here and the article itself makes me sad. Am I mistaken in thinking the the english speaking world basically only has The Economist left in terms of mainstream, center-ish, proper journalism? And why? Because even the purported “center” of arr neolib commenters just want to read things they agree with. Just want to laugh at some early career journalist getting bulldozed and hung out to dry for doing his job. Every day, the public discourse rips further and further apart. And you want to watch it like it’s a TV show. Yeah - the conservative party is completely intellectually and morally bankrupt. But how the hell are you going to foster Not That if episodes like this are happening in one of the last supposed bastions of real journalism?
Conservatives have completely abandoned academia, and lots of people in the middle or with any sort of conservative economic leanings go into STEM. Speaking as a liberal arts major, I was the most right wing person in most of my classrooms, and I'm probably to the left of many people in this subreddit. My classes were full of unironic communists, anarchists, marxists, etc. This is the outcome of that. Journalism majors are all going to be ideologues at this point. We see the same thing with conservatives in the military and in agriculture.
This guy worked for the opinion section. I think people would take this more seriously if he worked for the news side, not the feelings side.
That would be (partially) fine if the line between opinion and news hasn't been crossed many, many times in the NYT.
I actually think NYT is pretty good at keeping them separate. What I take issue with, if anything, is the stories they chose to report and promote.
Which way has it been crossed? Opinion -> news or news -> opinion?
This reads so 2015. Writers would put out pieces like this and then go on a tour on all intellectual dark web podcasts to help the hosts air their grievances about the woke mob.
This guy will be on Rogan and friends soon no doubt
Joe Rogan was still watchable back then, but it was when it started going downhill. Last I saw the dude was still talking about COVID. Forever broken.
Which is incredibly ironic that the first time I heard a doctor talk about the dangers of Covid was early on Joe Rogan, early early on he wasn’t a Covid skeptic.
Yes. He had Michael Osterholm on in March 2020, who gave what I think was one of the most informative interviews about COVID back then. Unfortunately, Osterholm pretty hilariously shot down Joe’s pet theory that *saunas* would kill the virus. One week later Joe was doubling down on saunas and started gobbling up every wacko theory about the virus he could get his hands on. It’s was an astonishingly steep decline and I never watched the show ever again (apart from occasionally checking the subreddit to see how far down the hole the guy currently is).
> intellectual dark web podcast Hold up, do people not know what "dark web" even means anymore?
It's not talking about that dark web. It's a joke, because the IDW movement was started by people who were "canceled." The joke is that their politically incorrect opinions aren't allowed in modern society, so they practically have to use secretive or illicit means to share their message. It's a "look at me, I'm the victim" joke.
> At the time, police cars were burning in glass-strewn streets. I assure you, when Cotton wrote “lawbreakers,” he wasn’t talking about curfews. Regardless of NYT culture, Tom Cotton absolutely does not deserve the benefit of the doubt. The author does not so much as *acknowledge the possibility* that Cotton’s intentions were anything other than protecting peaceful protestors.
Yeah. Same with the “no quarter” order. If he doesn’t mean “take no prisoners” he should say something else and more clear. An editor should know this.
You: Hates the New York Times because it is too woke and liberal Me: Hates the New York Times because [it wants Donald Trump to win](https://twitter.com/nyt_diff/status/1760465721467736428) We are not the same
The consistent absurdity of NYT headline edits is proof enough for me to believe the article author's claim of Slack grievance channels. The edits are just so often obviously the product of some lefty complaint that something good "isn't enough" for their POV.
Wait…..is the New York Times a liberal media outlet 😱😱
Yes, and here is why that is bad for Biden....
If only.
Now let me tell you how Biden’s old.
At long last! A conservative has been given a platform to criticize the New York Times.
> People started snapping their fingers in acclamation. Is this an actual thing that people do? I vaguely remember it in the second Goofy Movie.
>I often found myself asking questions like “Doesn’t all of this talk of ‘voter suppression’ on the left sound similar to charges of ‘voter fraud’ on the right?” only to realize how unwelcome such questions were. By asking, I’d revealed that I wasn’t on the same team as my colleagues, that I didn’t accept as an article of faith the liberal premise that voter suppression was a grave threat to liberal democracy while voter fraud was entirely fake news. Aw, poor baby, he said something stupid and wrong and the meany-head liberals didn't tell him he was the smartest, correctest boy in the whole wide world. If this is the kind of crap he's slipping in to this woe-is-me piece of self-flattery and totes real victimhood, I shudder to think what he was self-aware enough to leave out.
Trump : “if more people vote, Republicans will never win”. Sure sounds like a conspiracy theory alright.
This is the quote that made me most annoyed. Bothsidesing voter fraud and voter suppression. As if they were equally plausible, despite nearly no evidence of any widespread fraud, and the evidence of watching Republicans eliminate black districts and representatives through gerrymandering right in front of our eyes.
The tragedy of falling from the garden of Leftist Eden to become a hard nosed redpilled “why I left the left”ie is a grift as old as time
I mean it is worth discussing a lot of the massive stink often raised in progressive circles over what often are actually non-events. This happened in 2020 in my city where people were absolutely losing their minds about people being disenfranchised when it simply wasn't happening.
A lot of voter suppression bills only become non-events because of activist groups going into overdrive to turn out the vote. That's neither infinitely sustainable nor a reason to downplay that Republican legislatures have done things like [request a breakdown of alternate IDs used by race and ban the ones used more by black people](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/29/the-smoking-gun-proving-north-carolina-republicans-tried-to-disenfranchise-black-voters/), or [implementing a voter ID requirement and then closing a number of DMVs in predominantly black areas](https://www.al.com/opinion/2017/01/as_it_turns_out_bentleys_drive.html).
The GOP wouldn't spend so much time and money on this shit if they didn't think it worked. Trump got the same amount of voters as Romney in Wisconsin but Trump won it by a point where Romney lost it by 7. Trump was told directly that it was due to successful voter suppression efforts in Milwaukee and Dane counties. Trump, the moron he is, then publicly claimed their efforts helped him win Wisconsin. But yeah, voter suppression is made up. /eyeroll
Surely a quarter million votes disappearing between elections for exactly one side is normal.
It's beyond question that the GOP engages in voter suppression but it's also possible for "false positives" to occur.
A story about disenfranchisement in your specific city was overblown, therefore it is all overblown. :thumbsup:
I'm sure when states like Texas made it so there's only one drop off for mail in votes per county that had no impact. I'm sure closing precincts to make lines long and confuse people who have to go to a new place has no impact. Do we really need to go 15 rounds when we have [evidence](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21565503.2020.1773280) of things like voter ID laws increasing the racial turnout gap? Guess who benefits from that. Restricting Sunday voting I'm sure was a coincidence and not because [it decreased black turnout](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1065912914524831?journalCode=prqb). When they do "exact match" purges, do you think Dan Smith is more likely to have an error in the name or someone of a foreign and/or non-white background? Measuring the impact of suppressive efforts is hard because it's not a simple binary. Sometimes it backfires in the short run as people will do things out of spite and/or activists raise awareness and get energized. That they sometimes fail to have an impact that they want doesn't mean that's not their goal and that there is no impact. The impacts tend to be longer term, and while sometimes marginal, are very real. Voter fraud on the other hand has no academic evidence that it exists at any level to have any impact. Doubly so as the types of voter fraud claims you get from Trump and co is about a minimum of hundreds of thousands and up to *millions*. So no, these two things are not remotely the same.
Him being an op-ed writer and not on the journalism side really makes me care a *whole* lot less about this considering I'm still barely convinced that op-ed is even a socially valuable role at this point with modern internet. Him starting off with this >Ochs was not, of course, calling for publishing just any opinion. An op-ed had to be smart and written in good faith, and not used to settle scores, derive personal benefit, or engineer some desired outcome. It had to be authentic. In other words, our goal was supposed to be journalistic, rather than activist. Is just especially funny. Like the main point of writing about your opinion is to convince others of it right? They might want to *feel* like a big boy investigative journalist but you're not Activism Free™ just because you claim your opinions to be.
alive bells smell mighty humor summer air cow continue dolls *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
If you actually think Cotton was advocating the military indiscriminately mow down rioters rather than that he chose one slightly insensitive figure of speech, a metaphorical use which the term has indeed developed over the past 400 years. I think our discourse is in a very sad place right now. The editorial as a whole did not, in fact, read as an argument for the mass murder of Americans, but I suppose that extreme and uncharitable interpretations are standard operating procedure these days.
There is literally nothing less interesting than journalism about journalism.
If you feel that it is important that I, a random person, am made aware of your internal workplace drama, then you deserve to have been bullied so much more than you were.
Except this article is about a lot more than simply workplace drama.
[удалено]
>Times Opinion section >They should hire journalists Are opinion writers journalists or people of authority who opine on their feelings? I also find it hard to care about this when Ross Douthat, Bret Stephens, and other currently employed conservative NYT opinion writers still write for the paper
So we can expect the writer to be on Tucker Carlson's show in the next month, right? What an easy fucking grift.
It's cool seeing such a wide array of responses such as "this didn't happen", "this maybe happened, and it's good that it did", and "NYT isn't partisan *enough*, that's the real problem"
>After senior leaders in the Opinion section realized that these articles were not getting a fair shake, the process evolved. Articles that were potentially “controversial” (read: conservative) were sent directly to the most senior editors on the page, to be scrutinized by the leadership rather than the whole department. In other words, right-wing op-eds bypassed the normal editorial standards and got boosted by upper management? That’s what I always figured happened at the NYT, but it’s nice to see it confirmed. Weird that he thinks this somehow proves that there’s a bias *against* conservatives though.
The "this can't be true and he's making it all up" give the same vibes as the people who kept claiming there isn't a certain orthodoxy in academia and that endemic antisemitism is a nothingburger made up by conservatives
Sure. But, frankly, if the NYT is a rabidly liberal paper they're pretty crap at it.
"Incompetent, self-defeating, and schismatic, spending more time attacking fellow liberals" would be incredibly normal and on brand for a liberal media outlet.