Red Mosquito

It is nice that someone finally brought up an alternative theory for why he was fired. It's wrong, but it's nice.

BurtReynolds wrote:

Mickey wrote:I do have one lingering concern, though: was Senator Tom Cotton's proposal broadly popular, or does he hold dissenting views which are being silenced through Bennett's resignation? Which is it? Because it can't be both a common sense proposal that many agree with and a minority view being squashed by the big bad liberal media, especially when, again, Cotton as a sitting senator has a number of other outlets for his views, including the ol senate floor.

Nevermind the fact that James Bennett as an editor has a responsibility to the NYT, and therefore to their bottom line, and that if he makes the decision to print something broadly unpopular with their readers leading to a wave of subscription cancellations, he is actually *failing* in his job.

They are dissenting views within the liberal media sphere that NYT and its staff are a part of and goes against the broader liberal establishment narrative. It's apparently not a dissenting opinion with the public at large, to the liberal media's undying frustration.

Ah, so they are being silenced within the liberal media sphere for holding/expressing non-liberal views. Sounds like a real threat to free speech. What's next, is AOC not allowed to praise the Green New Deal in the Daily Caller.

Mickey wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Mickey wrote:I do have one lingering concern, though: was Senator Tom Cotton's proposal broadly popular, or does he hold dissenting views which are being silenced through Bennett's resignation? Which is it? Because it can't be both a common sense proposal that many agree with and a minority view being squashed by the big bad liberal media, especially when, again, Cotton as a sitting senator has a number of other outlets for his views, including the ol senate floor.

Nevermind the fact that James Bennett as an editor has a responsibility to the NYT, and therefore to their bottom line, and that if he makes the decision to print something broadly unpopular with their readers leading to a wave of subscription cancellations, he is actually *failing* in his job.

They are dissenting views within the liberal media sphere that NYT and its staff are a part of and goes against the broader liberal establishment narrative. It's apparently not a dissenting opinion with the public at large, to the liberal media's undying frustration.

Ah, so they are being silenced within the liberal media sphere for holding/expressing non-liberal views. Sounds like a real threat to free speech. What's next, is AOC not allowed to praise the Green New Deal in the Daily Caller.

Given that (as I have successfully argued in the media thread) the liberal media is the nearly de facto The Media and they claim to be unbiased, then yes, it is a threat to free speech. Though luckily due to the rapid decline in their relevance, and a diminishing belief in their authority, a weakening one.

But it's not due to their lack of trying.

But thank God for fox news to balance things out, right?

BurtReynolds wrote:

Mickey wrote:I do have one lingering concern, though: was Senator Tom Cotton's proposal broadly popular, or does he hold dissenting views which are being silenced through Bennett's resignation? Which is it? Because it can't be both a common sense proposal that many agree with and a minority view being squashed by the big bad liberal media, especially when, again, Cotton as a sitting senator has a number of other outlets for his views, including the ol senate floor.

Nevermind the fact that James Bennett as an editor has a responsibility to the NYT, and therefore to their bottom line, and that if he makes the decision to print something broadly unpopular with their readers leading to a wave of subscription cancellations, he is actually *failing* in his job.

They are dissenting views within the liberal media sphere that NYT and its staff are a part of and goes against the broader liberal establishment narrative. It's apparently not a dissenting opinion with the public at large, to the liberal media's undying frustration.

The same week of polling showing that 58% of Americans supported using the military to assist with police response showed that 64% of Americans supported the protesters and disapproved of violent institutional reactions.

Do you think that when Tom Cotton wrote “One thing above all else will restore order to our streets: an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter,” a significant number of people both supported the people in the streets and wanted to see them put down by aggressive force? Or is it possible that what he was proposing was in fact vastly different from the type of military assistance they imagined when asked, and that’s why you have seen no subsequent outcry of broad public support for such a thing?

tragabigzanda wrote:

Mickey wrote:What's next, is AOC not allowed to praise the Green New Deal in the Daily Caller.

Lol. But yeah, basically this.

Double lol

BurtReynolds wrote:

Mickey wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Mickey wrote:I do have one lingering concern, though: was Senator Tom Cotton's proposal broadly popular, or does he hold dissenting views which are being silenced through Bennett's resignation? Which is it? Because it can't be both a common sense proposal that many agree with and a minority view being squashed by the big bad liberal media, especially when, again, Cotton as a sitting senator has a number of other outlets for his views, including the ol senate floor.

Nevermind the fact that James Bennett as an editor has a responsibility to the NYT, and therefore to their bottom line, and that if he makes the decision to print something broadly unpopular with their readers leading to a wave of subscription cancellations, he is actually *failing* in his job.

They are dissenting views within the liberal media sphere that NYT and its staff are a part of and goes against the broader liberal establishment narrative. It's apparently not a dissenting opinion with the public at large, to the liberal media's undying frustration.

Ah, so they are being silenced within the liberal media sphere for holding/expressing non-liberal views. Sounds like a real threat to free speech. What's next, is AOC not allowed to praise the Green New Deal in the Daily Caller.

Given that (as I have successfully argued in the media thread) the liberal media is the nearly de facto The Media and they claim to be unbiased, then yes, it is a threat to free speech. Though luckily due to the rapid decline in their relevance, and a diminishing belief in their authority, a weakening one.

But it's due to their lack of trying.

Lmfao. Again, are they the de-facto media, or are they rapidly declining in their relevance? Do they hold the strings of power, or is there a "diminishing belief in their authority, a weakening one?" You can't decide because you don't actually have an argument here, you don't have a nuanced or particularly insightful understanding of mass media, of the financial structures that underlie it, the distribution networks that constitute its reach, or even of how viewers and readers interact with mass media offerings. It's all felt grievance and paranoia from a man who yearns for a world with more peril than doldrums.

McParadigm wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Mickey wrote:I do have one lingering concern, though: was Senator Tom Cotton's proposal broadly popular, or does he hold dissenting views which are being silenced through Bennett's resignation? Which is it? Because it can't be both a common sense proposal that many agree with and a minority view being squashed by the big bad liberal media, especially when, again, Cotton as a sitting senator has a number of other outlets for his views, including the ol senate floor.

Nevermind the fact that James Bennett as an editor has a responsibility to the NYT, and therefore to their bottom line, and that if he makes the decision to print something broadly unpopular with their readers leading to a wave of subscription cancellations, he is actually *failing* in his job.

They are dissenting views within the liberal media sphere that NYT and its staff are a part of and goes against the broader liberal establishment narrative. It's apparently not a dissenting opinion with the public at large, to the liberal media's undying frustration.

The same week of polling showing that 58% of Americans supported using the military to assist with police response showed that 64% of Americans supported the protesters and disapproved of violent institutional reactions.

Do you think that when Tom Cotton wrote “One thing above all else will restore order to our streets: an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter,” a significant number of people both supported the people in the streets and wanted to see them put down by aggressive force? Or is it possible that what he was proposing was in fact vastly different from the type of military assistance they imagined when asked, and that’s why you have seen no subsequent outcry of broad public support for such a thing?

I don't see a contradiction with the polls you mentioned. I think what he was proposing was in line with the majority opinion, yes. And what would qualify as an outcry of public support for you? How would you even hear it, considering the establishment narrative is decidedly against it?

Mickey wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Mickey wrote:I do have one lingering concern, though: was Senator Tom Cotton's proposal broadly popular, or does he hold dissenting views which are being silenced through Bennett's resignation? Which is it? Because it can't be both a common sense proposal that many agree with and a minority view being squashed by the big bad liberal media, especially when, again, Cotton as a sitting senator has a number of other outlets for his views, including the ol senate floor.

Nevermind the fact that James Bennett as an editor has a responsibility to the NYT, and therefore to their bottom line, and that if he makes the decision to print something broadly unpopular with their readers leading to a wave of subscription cancellations, he is actually *failing* in his job.

They are dissenting views within the liberal media sphere that NYT and its staff are a part of and goes against the broader liberal establishment narrative. It's apparently not a dissenting opinion with the public at large, to the liberal media's undying frustration.

Ah, so they are being silenced within the liberal media sphere for holding/expressing non-liberal views. Sounds like a real threat to free speech. What's next, is AOC not allowed to praise the Green New Deal in the Daily Caller.

Ugh. The piece implied criminality in the rioters, vandals, and looters beyond what the local governments could handle and that threatened the perception of the protests at large by associating them with uncontrolled violent mayhem and not some form of justifiable anger. The connection between the protestors and the looters... THAT is what was unacceptable. THAT association is what the were trying to stop. They burned the guy to the ground on ideological purity grounds rather than risk allowing anyone to associate black anger and crime (e.g. LA Riots).

Mickey wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Mickey wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:

Mickey wrote:I do have one lingering concern, though: was Senator Tom Cotton's proposal broadly popular, or does he hold dissenting views which are being silenced through Bennett's resignation? Which is it? Because it can't be both a common sense proposal that many agree with and a minority view being squashed by the big bad liberal media, especially when, again, Cotton as a sitting senator has a number of other outlets for his views, including the ol senate floor.

Nevermind the fact that James Bennett as an editor has a responsibility to the NYT, and therefore to their bottom line, and that if he makes the decision to print something broadly unpopular with their readers leading to a wave of subscription cancellations, he is actually *failing* in his job.

They are dissenting views within the liberal media sphere that NYT and its staff are a part of and goes against the broader liberal establishment narrative. It's apparently not a dissenting opinion with the public at large, to the liberal media's undying frustration.

Ah, so they are being silenced within the liberal media sphere for holding/expressing non-liberal views. Sounds like a real threat to free speech. What's next, is AOC not allowed to praise the Green New Deal in the Daily Caller.

Given that (as I have successfully argued in the media thread) the liberal media is the nearly de facto The Media and they claim to be unbiased, then yes, it is a threat to free speech. Though luckily due to the rapid decline in their relevance, and a diminishing belief in their authority, a weakening one.

But it's due to their lack of trying.

Lmfao. Again, are they the de-facto media, or are they rapidly declining in their relevance? Do they hold the strings of power, or is there a "diminishing belief in their authority, a weakening one?" You can't decide because you don't actually have an argument here, you don't have a nuanced or particularly insightful understanding of mass media, of the financial structures that underlie it, the distribution networks that constitute its reach, or even of how viewers and readers interact with mass media offerings. It's all felt grievance and paranoia from a man who yearns for a world with more peril than doldrums.

They are the rapidly declining de-facto media lol. These are not contradictions. I dont know why this is so hard for you to understand. You are the one who can't understand nuance.

Bi_3 wrote:They burned the guy to the ground on ideological purity grounds rather than risk allowing anyone to associate black anger and crime (e.g. LA Riots).

They fired him for doing a heckin' racism!

shit I have to switch to a laptop. These quote pyramids are getting out of control

But, again, if they're rapidly declining *who cares* what they do. I'm not out here getting worked up about the rapidly declining influence of Amy Klobuchar. I know it's hard for you to see contradictions but this one's pretty fucking basic.

More broadly, this is incidentally the same point you (Burt) were arguing for in the Media thread last night and on which you tried to equivocate by half-heartedly pivoting to social media. It's just as untenable now as it was then: there is no conceptual utility to calling "censorship" the decisions made by private media corporations about what does and does not appear in their pages or on their shows. As I said there:

Mickey wrote:It is *absurd* to argue that, by virtue of not appearing or having the opportunity to appear on certain news networks or in the pages of certain newspapers, you or your ideas are being "censored," because by that definition the New York Times would have to print *every* idea, every op-ed, every perspective that comes their way in order to avoid the charge of censorship. It would abolish the notion of editorial standards and perspective. Does those phenomena share some structural similarity with censorship, insofar as they are all based on a prohibition or exclusion? Sure, but there's no useful definition of censorship where it includes the fact that CNN won't let me come on the air to talk about gamer's rights. It might make a certain semantic sense if you stretch the terms far enough, but it *purposefully* obfuscates rather than clarifies the workings of mass media.

Building this allegation around the Tom Cotton op-ed just shows how flimsy of an argument it is. The New York Times does not have an obligation to print every viewpoint that comes their way, much less seek them out from people with large public platforms, and nor do they have to retain staff who have made decisions that go against their editorial vision (or, for that matter, the one held by their subscribers). Not that I expect much from a devotee of Saint Max, but collapsing these sorts of decisions into the broad category of censorship is the pinnacle of intellectually laziness.

Yes, the people are finding ways around the establishment media to promote their perspectives. Yes, people are losing faith in establishment media. Yes free speech keeps finding a way in spite of the establishment media. But the establishment media is still a potent force with real power, completely hi-jacked by ideologues who craft narratives and suppress voices that go against those narratives, and they should be treated as such. They are weakening but aren't close to being defeated.

tragabigzanda wrote:NYT, Fox, WaPo...they’ll all be dinosaurs in ten years time. Mark my words. There are simultaneous movements in non-profit journalism and citizen “journalism” that will supplant the dominant paradigm.

Solutions Journalism Network, Report For America, Diamond & Silk, Nextdoor...These are examples of both the good and bad sorts of orgs/personalities that will collectively flip the model faster than you might think possible.

I hope so.

Mickey wrote:More broadly, this is incidentally the same point you (Burt) were arguing for in the Media thread last night and on which you tried to equivocate by half-heartedly pivoting to social media.

haha you're still on this? i don't think I could have been more clear.

BurtReynolds wrote:

Mickey wrote:More broadly, this is incidentally the same point you (Burt) were arguing for in the Media thread last night and on which you tried to equivocate by half-heartedly pivoting to social media.

haha you're still on this? i don't think I could have been more clear.

No, I don't have much faith in your writing abilities either.