"The Times isn’t being manipulated; it’s using Rufo as an excuse to do what it wants to do." That's 100 percent correct but I would only add this. The Times was full on board with claiming a scalp for supporters of Israel who want to silence and sideline all criticism of Israel's genocidal campaign in Gaza. What they miss is that more young people today - and a lot of those who are not so young - now read and watch independent news sources not in Israel's amen corner. The Times is increasingly irrelevant.
Israel isn’t perpetrating a genocidal campaign. This isn’t a serious criticism of Israel’s conduct. Shouldn’t you be more upset with Hamas, whose founding charter explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel?
Are you disagreeing that their original charter, which they’ve never disavowed, calls for destroying Israel? You’re also accusing Israel of genocide and refusing to engage in a discussion about the truth of that accusation. Is that a good faith approach?
Has a verdict been handed down? Who is “the whole world?” Are you comfortable with Hamas hiding among the civilian population? That tactic has led to many more civilian casualties. Israel is also winding down its most intensive operations in the north and has a reached a deal to provide aid to Gaza. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/live-blog/israel-hamas-war-live-updates-rcna134047
Israel has had an ethnic cleansing program since before it was officially recognized as a country in 1948. This has been fully documented in “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine,” by the Israeli author, Ilan Pappe. Nothing justified the horrors of 10/7. But those horrors do not justify the massive ethnics cleansing that is currently underway. During the late Mandatory period, what would become the government of Israel planned and began executing Plan Dalet, with the stated goal of removing Palestinians from Palestine through the use of intimidation, terror, and massacre. The IDF has used every act of resistance by Palestinians to continue this program.
They are so afraid of far-right criticism--as if ANYTHING they did could make the far-right view them as valid--that they grab on to these "opportunities" in order to say "See?! See?! We're fair, please know we're fair, we HEAR you! Left, right, we cover all the malfeasance!"
Totally related to the plethora of "Angry 'Conservative' (read: bigot) in a diner" stories, which we KNOW we're getting a f***ton more of now through November. ("In this Michigan diner, Martha and Joe Holder don't like Trump's brashness [sic], but..."
That is definitely among the reasons for their behavior, though over the last couple of decades I've revised downward my estimate of how dominant that particular factor is and revised upward my estimate of the importance of the personal biases of key decision-makers (including, but not most significantly so, prominent individual journalists.)
exactly my take. Fairness might have been at the top of their minds 20-25 years ago, but they've become a right-wing newspaper pretending to be moderate/centrist. I suspect the upper echelons have become addicted to the thrill of being power brokers.
Sulzberger chose Baquet, and now Kahn to deliver the content we see on pg. 1 (and conversely to place things on pg. 18 that we know are much bigger stories).
Just as anyone who doesn't want to swim in sewage would have left Twitter by now, news consumers who don't enjoy constant political gaslighting would have canceled their NYT subscriptions by now.
People continue to support the Times because they feel reassured by both-siderism, which allows them to pretend our democracy isn't spiraling into oblivion.
Rufo manages to activate Horse Race Mode, so that, as with election and political coverage, they focus strictly on whether or not a strategy is winning and not whether or not it is based on smoke and mirrors.
I almost wish I still subscribed to the Times so I could call them and unsubscribe again. I was courteous to the person on the phone, but I also did not equivocate.
I consider the New York Times to hold equal responsibility with CNN and Fox News for the ascension of Trump to the Presidency in 2016. If not for their elevation and legitimization of the Clinton email story, Trump never would have won.
Rufo and Stefanik are fungible, yes; but the people who fund them and those like them from Trump on down, are not. But because those people (Bob Mercer, Carl Icahn, Paul Singer, et al.) are so closely tied to Wall Street, and thus New York high society, they receive little or no lasting scrutiny at all from the Times or anyone in the US corporate media.
If Icahn or Singer or Dick Uileihn were made half as "famous" as Stefanik or Greene or Carlson or Coulter seem to be, Middle America's view of their faction might change somewhat.
It's easy as fuck to tell you why the NYT keeps getting fooled... Because they are not being fooled, they popped center right quite awhile ago. They printed that shit x5 because they are on the same shit as Rufo.
And lost my subscription they did. What a POS rag, yet my liberal friends go along, unquestioning, and proud members of the Leopards Eating Faces Party. The awkward part? The cons I know would never subscribe to “that libtard publication.” So this garbage journalism is made possible by...libtards? Maybe the cons were onto something with that slur, in as much as Hillary was spot on with Deplorables?
The Times would not be invested in churning out 63 articles if this story and all its layers (anti-semitism, academic integrity, elite universities, plagiarism, etc) weren't compelling or important to the readers.
If the Times took anti-semitism seriously it would note Elise Stefanik's history of spreading and supporting antisemitism in its many articles about her questioning university presidents about antisemitism. It does not: https://findinggravity.substack.com/p/why-wont-the-nyt-tell-readers-elise
If the Times took academic integrity seriously, it would have reported on Stanford's president's much larger academic integrity issues before he was forced to resign; it did not. https://donmoynihan.substack.com/p/the-campaign-to-remove-the-president. If it cared about universities, it would report the 797-100 faculty vote of no confidence in West Virginia University's president; it has not.
The conclusion by the panel investigating Stanford's president found no evidence that he committed any actual misconduct of any kind, which is more than can be said for Harvard's. The NYT reported on it the day the report came out.
As for West Virginia University, Harvard is about a thousand times more nationally relevant than West Virginia University. I doubt you can name a single alumnus. Claiming that the NYT is engaging in a double standard because it reported on misconduct by the President of Harvard but not a symbolic development in a budget fight that the NYT reported on is ridiculous.
I appreciate your response and the piece you wrote about Rep. Stefanik. I briefly read about some of this about her but your piece sheds more light. Funny enough, I attend Stanford and the firestorm around the former president was huge naturally due to my proximity. I believe the NYT has fallen over the years in many ways, but I personally support the coverage of these issues as of late. Rufo and Stefanik may have their personal motivations; imho they do not take away from the value of heightened focus on (most notably) anti-semitism and academic integrity since the congressional hearing.
"The Times isn’t being manipulated; it’s using Rufo as an excuse to do what it wants to do." That's 100 percent correct but I would only add this. The Times was full on board with claiming a scalp for supporters of Israel who want to silence and sideline all criticism of Israel's genocidal campaign in Gaza. What they miss is that more young people today - and a lot of those who are not so young - now read and watch independent news sources not in Israel's amen corner. The Times is increasingly irrelevant.
Israel isn’t perpetrating a genocidal campaign. This isn’t a serious criticism of Israel’s conduct. Shouldn’t you be more upset with Hamas, whose founding charter explicitly calls for the destruction of Israel?
I'm not even going to bother responding to your silly talking point at this juncture.
Are you disagreeing that their original charter, which they’ve never disavowed, calls for destroying Israel? You’re also accusing Israel of genocide and refusing to engage in a discussion about the truth of that accusation. Is that a good faith approach?
How do you feel now that the evidence is out at the court of justice and the whole world is in the streets protesting the genocide?
Has a verdict been handed down? Who is “the whole world?” Are you comfortable with Hamas hiding among the civilian population? That tactic has led to many more civilian casualties. Israel is also winding down its most intensive operations in the north and has a reached a deal to provide aid to Gaza. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/live-blog/israel-hamas-war-live-updates-rcna134047
LOL Mute block for stupidity.
Israel has had an ethnic cleansing program since before it was officially recognized as a country in 1948. This has been fully documented in “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine,” by the Israeli author, Ilan Pappe. Nothing justified the horrors of 10/7. But those horrors do not justify the massive ethnics cleansing that is currently underway. During the late Mandatory period, what would become the government of Israel planned and began executing Plan Dalet, with the stated goal of removing Palestinians from Palestine through the use of intimidation, terror, and massacre. The IDF has used every act of resistance by Palestinians to continue this program.
They are so afraid of far-right criticism--as if ANYTHING they did could make the far-right view them as valid--that they grab on to these "opportunities" in order to say "See?! See?! We're fair, please know we're fair, we HEAR you! Left, right, we cover all the malfeasance!"
Totally related to the plethora of "Angry 'Conservative' (read: bigot) in a diner" stories, which we KNOW we're getting a f***ton more of now through November. ("In this Michigan diner, Martha and Joe Holder don't like Trump's brashness [sic], but..."
That is definitely among the reasons for their behavior, though over the last couple of decades I've revised downward my estimate of how dominant that particular factor is and revised upward my estimate of the importance of the personal biases of key decision-makers (including, but not most significantly so, prominent individual journalists.)
exactly my take. Fairness might have been at the top of their minds 20-25 years ago, but they've become a right-wing newspaper pretending to be moderate/centrist. I suspect the upper echelons have become addicted to the thrill of being power brokers.
Right.
Sulzberger chose Baquet, and now Kahn to deliver the content we see on pg. 1 (and conversely to place things on pg. 18 that we know are much bigger stories).
Just as anyone who doesn't want to swim in sewage would have left Twitter by now, news consumers who don't enjoy constant political gaslighting would have canceled their NYT subscriptions by now.
People continue to support the Times because they feel reassured by both-siderism, which allows them to pretend our democracy isn't spiraling into oblivion.
Rufo manages to activate Horse Race Mode, so that, as with election and political coverage, they focus strictly on whether or not a strategy is winning and not whether or not it is based on smoke and mirrors.
I almost wish I still subscribed to the Times so I could call them and unsubscribe again. I was courteous to the person on the phone, but I also did not equivocate.
I consider the New York Times to hold equal responsibility with CNN and Fox News for the ascension of Trump to the Presidency in 2016. If not for their elevation and legitimization of the Clinton email story, Trump never would have won.
Rufo and Stefanik are fungible, yes; but the people who fund them and those like them from Trump on down, are not. But because those people (Bob Mercer, Carl Icahn, Paul Singer, et al.) are so closely tied to Wall Street, and thus New York high society, they receive little or no lasting scrutiny at all from the Times or anyone in the US corporate media.
If Icahn or Singer or Dick Uileihn were made half as "famous" as Stefanik or Greene or Carlson or Coulter seem to be, Middle America's view of their faction might change somewhat.
It's easy as fuck to tell you why the NYT keeps getting fooled... Because they are not being fooled, they popped center right quite awhile ago. They printed that shit x5 because they are on the same shit as Rufo.
And lost my subscription they did. What a POS rag, yet my liberal friends go along, unquestioning, and proud members of the Leopards Eating Faces Party. The awkward part? The cons I know would never subscribe to “that libtard publication.” So this garbage journalism is made possible by...libtards? Maybe the cons were onto something with that slur, in as much as Hillary was spot on with Deplorables?
Yes - UNPLUG from corporate propaganda- I can’t beg people often or loudly enough (check my pinned post)
Some people just like getting played.
The Times would not be invested in churning out 63 articles if this story and all its layers (anti-semitism, academic integrity, elite universities, plagiarism, etc) weren't compelling or important to the readers.
That isn't why the Times is doing this.
If the Times took anti-semitism seriously it would note Elise Stefanik's history of spreading and supporting antisemitism in its many articles about her questioning university presidents about antisemitism. It does not: https://findinggravity.substack.com/p/why-wont-the-nyt-tell-readers-elise
If the Times took academic integrity seriously, it would have reported on Stanford's president's much larger academic integrity issues before he was forced to resign; it did not. https://donmoynihan.substack.com/p/the-campaign-to-remove-the-president. If it cared about universities, it would report the 797-100 faculty vote of no confidence in West Virginia University's president; it has not.
The conclusion by the panel investigating Stanford's president found no evidence that he committed any actual misconduct of any kind, which is more than can be said for Harvard's. The NYT reported on it the day the report came out.
As for West Virginia University, Harvard is about a thousand times more nationally relevant than West Virginia University. I doubt you can name a single alumnus. Claiming that the NYT is engaging in a double standard because it reported on misconduct by the President of Harvard but not a symbolic development in a budget fight that the NYT reported on is ridiculous.
I appreciate your response and the piece you wrote about Rep. Stefanik. I briefly read about some of this about her but your piece sheds more light. Funny enough, I attend Stanford and the firestorm around the former president was huge naturally due to my proximity. I believe the NYT has fallen over the years in many ways, but I personally support the coverage of these issues as of late. Rufo and Stefanik may have their personal motivations; imho they do not take away from the value of heightened focus on (most notably) anti-semitism and academic integrity since the congressional hearing.