I think it's pretty obvious what the new orthodoxy is, and she gave some examples of it. How many more questions do you want to ask? The NYT is condoning high school student canceling each other, hiding anti-Semitism from certain writers they like based on the obvious factors, making wild narratives about US history (like their Revolutionary War revisionism), and most importantly, unlike papers like the Financial Times which publish multiple competing views side by side (there are probably few FT readers here but it really is a highlight), they intimidate people who are centrists because they don't toe the line. Which line, you ask, what do you think?
We accuse Republicans of being anti science (they are, it's often true), but we publish op eds criticizing protests on the right as carriers of coronavirus while praising protests of another sort. Last week Krugman criticized red states (correctly) for opening up too soon, but he said absolutely nothing about the California spike.
So what do you want in a newspaper, facts or agitprop??
I don't remember seeing a single pro-brexit op-ed in the FT. The FT isn't publishing competing views. It very much aligned itself to the NYT's "only the facts that fits the narrative" approach.
Hm, I definitely remember a lot of anti-Brexit pieces, and I don't remember the balance overall so I'll take your word for it. Perhaps that's a sore point for the FT, which is fundamentally not 'right' or 'left' but more classical liberal / free-trade oriented. Investors care about these things, at least many do. The NYT, though, if you do a little experiment and go to the website right now, look at the headlines displayed. The headlines alone are editorialized, but there are interpretations being done for you if you delve into the articles themselves, versus rational arguments being put forth. A paper I read daily and which I sometimes post here, Bloomberg, started doing this in a section called "CityLab". And today was an Opinions piece saying that Cancel Culture is a joke, doesn't exist and is proof of privilege that it was even mentioned.
The FT I've seen opinion pieces on completely opposite views side by side or issue to issue. Sometimes something would respond days later to something posted before, in a rebuttal. True both in the editorials and in the Letters section. Dear Sirs...
There are also no pro-pollution op-eds, or anti-vaccine op-ends in the FT, because they hold themselves to a standard of not publishing "he-said-she-said" fair-and-balanced views, but to give some insight into which of the two sides of an argument seems to have evidence on its side. Brexiters didn't (and don't) have the facts or watertight arguments on theirs side, especially economically speaking.
“The facts are all on my side”, “anyone who disagree with me has either evil motives or is an idiot”, etc... is the sort of illiberal approach to political discourse which is exactly what triggered the resignation letter.
I've subscribed to the FT for over a decade and I think you are giving them way too much credit here. They took a very clear anti-Brexit stance and that coloured their publishing. They have done the same with Trump to a frankly embarrassing degree.
We accuse Republicans of being anti science (they are, it's often true), but we publish op eds criticizing protests on the right as carriers of coronavirus while praising protests of another sort. Last week Krugman criticized red states (correctly) for opening up too soon, but he said absolutely nothing about the California spike.
So what do you want in a newspaper, facts or agitprop??
reply