I read and article about how only freaks and weirdos leave comments because 99% of users lurk (I can’t remember where) so I wanted to pop in and leave a Substack comment as a normal person. That comment is I liked this piece!
I’ve defended the NYT even when a lot of people have complained about the topics they choose to cover (trans issues, the Tom Cotton op-ed), but this podcast really tested my patience in a way those things did not. It just shows so little self-awareness to have people like Hasan Piker and Jia Tolentino (who by all accounts are extremely privileged) encourage anti-social behavior for… what? The lulz? Spiegelman also didn’t do herself any favors by not really pushing back and laughing along as if she was so excited to be at the cool kids’ table.
To use a line from Succession, they are not “serious people.”
This is a reductive way of putting it. I didn’t agree with Tom Cotton’s op-ed, but I saw the value in printing it. And I understand the value in printing stories that deal with the complexity of trans issues in spite of activist pushback.
As Jeremiah eloquently explains above, this podcast doesn’t meet those standards. I’m not suggesting these opinions can’t be expressed, but I am disappointed in how they were framed and how little pushback they received. The guests are essentially condoning murder and theft and the NYT treated the conversation very flippantly in my opinion.
Right, you thought the opinion piece of three people of varying culture cache condoning shoplifting and explaining why many people don't care about the death of a CEO was beyond the line, but the sitting US Senator basically endorsing the POTUS sending the military out to crack some skulls had some value.
That shows where you are - arguments for a form of fascism from those in power have some value while arguments for a form of leftism, which I as a social democrat also think are kind of dumb don't. Which - fine - but it shows where your sympathies lie.
If you can’t see the difference between printing the opinion of a sitting US Senator vs an Internet streamer and culture writer, I don’t know what to tell you.
Everyone knows what went down in San Francisco in 2020 when "property crime" under $1,000 became a non-prosecutable offense. The New York Times could have simply posted a map of San Francisco and the number of local inner city pharmacies and markets that had to close because of it. Of course, it hurt those it was supposed to help most. Loss of jobs and their businesses.
I have a middle ground view between yours and "they don't have a choice". I think they do have to play the content game, because that is precisely how they get the attention that drives subscriptions and that can subsidize the more serious coverage. And when you look at the "most shared" list it's often not the most serious and high-minded stuff.
That said, that doesn't mean they have no agency, and I do think this particular podcast episode was over the line. They could have just posted another article about a middle aged woman divorcing her husband and hooking up a bunch instead. They can still draw some lines even if the gatekeeping of old is no longer possible.
It's really a shame that the WaPo self immolated because I basically have to eat this if I want access to any decent investigative journalism whatsoever.
The only alternative I can think of is microlooting articles with archive.is
It's not just lamentable; I question whether a society can survive this kind of transformation. It does seem like most of the boomer commenters on NYT were appalled, but I'm not sure how much that matters.
Are we back in the 1970s? Dario Fo and RAF shoplifters. Lets find something really stupid to feed the conservative beast which need something fresh (or refreshed) after abortion and woke to focus on. New York Times threads carefully around Trump but allows this shit. WTF?
I think what irks me is, while those media types seem to lose the sense of moral obligation, they still yarn for (or maybe more so than the past) for adulation - and I feel like this type of attitude is prevalent everywhere.
Marc Andressen etc are like other examples of it - they not only tossed out morality to seek the money (bad) but they demand ppl to give them adulation (worse imo).
"They occupied a privileged position, and they knew that with that privilege came a real responsibility to the public, an obligation to put forward ideas that actually mattered." 💯
My excuse to post my favorite piece of writing on this:
“In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations. The new needs friends.”
That cartoon critic is right. When you demolish the role of gatekeeper you miss the new as well in place of the already popular, the cult of “let people enjoy things”
People criticize AI because it offloads a person’s ability to think but we’ve essentially experimented with doing that through the elimination of gatekeepers and discovered without institutions verifying the quality of ideas people end up in really idiotic places. Nice piece.
I read and article about how only freaks and weirdos leave comments because 99% of users lurk (I can’t remember where) so I wanted to pop in and leave a Substack comment as a normal person. That comment is I liked this piece!
sounds like a smart article, whoever wrote that
I've wanted to ask this for a while, but you wouldn't happen to be this fine gentleman from back in the day, would you?
https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/9rvroo/most_of_what_you_read_on_the_internet_is_written
If so, I feel like everyone from the old subreddit moved here.
I’ve defended the NYT even when a lot of people have complained about the topics they choose to cover (trans issues, the Tom Cotton op-ed), but this podcast really tested my patience in a way those things did not. It just shows so little self-awareness to have people like Hasan Piker and Jia Tolentino (who by all accounts are extremely privileged) encourage anti-social behavior for… what? The lulz? Spiegelman also didn’t do herself any favors by not really pushing back and laughing along as if she was so excited to be at the cool kids’ table.
To use a line from Succession, they are not “serious people.”
So in other words, you defended the NYT when they did more right coded things, but your patience is tested when they did left coded things.
This is a reductive way of putting it. I didn’t agree with Tom Cotton’s op-ed, but I saw the value in printing it. And I understand the value in printing stories that deal with the complexity of trans issues in spite of activist pushback.
As Jeremiah eloquently explains above, this podcast doesn’t meet those standards. I’m not suggesting these opinions can’t be expressed, but I am disappointed in how they were framed and how little pushback they received. The guests are essentially condoning murder and theft and the NYT treated the conversation very flippantly in my opinion.
Right, you thought the opinion piece of three people of varying culture cache condoning shoplifting and explaining why many people don't care about the death of a CEO was beyond the line, but the sitting US Senator basically endorsing the POTUS sending the military out to crack some skulls had some value.
That shows where you are - arguments for a form of fascism from those in power have some value while arguments for a form of leftism, which I as a social democrat also think are kind of dumb don't. Which - fine - but it shows where your sympathies lie.
If you can’t see the difference between printing the opinion of a sitting US Senator vs an Internet streamer and culture writer, I don’t know what to tell you.
Everyone knows what went down in San Francisco in 2020 when "property crime" under $1,000 became a non-prosecutable offense. The New York Times could have simply posted a map of San Francisco and the number of local inner city pharmacies and markets that had to close because of it. Of course, it hurt those it was supposed to help most. Loss of jobs and their businesses.
I have a middle ground view between yours and "they don't have a choice". I think they do have to play the content game, because that is precisely how they get the attention that drives subscriptions and that can subsidize the more serious coverage. And when you look at the "most shared" list it's often not the most serious and high-minded stuff.
That said, that doesn't mean they have no agency, and I do think this particular podcast episode was over the line. They could have just posted another article about a middle aged woman divorcing her husband and hooking up a bunch instead. They can still draw some lines even if the gatekeeping of old is no longer possible.
It's really a shame that the WaPo self immolated because I basically have to eat this if I want access to any decent investigative journalism whatsoever.
The only alternative I can think of is microlooting articles with archive.is
Preach. Eventually this country is going to have to sober up and remember self-respect.
It's not just lamentable; I question whether a society can survive this kind of transformation. It does seem like most of the boomer commenters on NYT were appalled, but I'm not sure how much that matters.
Well put.
Are we back in the 1970s? Dario Fo and RAF shoplifters. Lets find something really stupid to feed the conservative beast which need something fresh (or refreshed) after abortion and woke to focus on. New York Times threads carefully around Trump but allows this shit. WTF?
I think what irks me is, while those media types seem to lose the sense of moral obligation, they still yarn for (or maybe more so than the past) for adulation - and I feel like this type of attitude is prevalent everywhere.
Marc Andressen etc are like other examples of it - they not only tossed out morality to seek the money (bad) but they demand ppl to give them adulation (worse imo).
Like you can’t have a cake and eat it imo
"They occupied a privileged position, and they knew that with that privilege came a real responsibility to the public, an obligation to put forward ideas that actually mattered." 💯
My excuse to post my favorite piece of writing on this:
“In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations. The new needs friends.”
That cartoon critic is right. When you demolish the role of gatekeeper you miss the new as well in place of the already popular, the cult of “let people enjoy things”
great essay and perspective, thanks!
Very well-said! Agree entirely.
People criticize AI because it offloads a person’s ability to think but we’ve essentially experimented with doing that through the elimination of gatekeepers and discovered without institutions verifying the quality of ideas people end up in really idiotic places. Nice piece.
"With great powe comes great responsibility" or something like that.
May I also recommend Noah Smith’s take on “micro-looting” from a more realistic economic perspective?
https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/why-shoplifting-is-bad?r=hc01g&utm_medium=ios
“Have some fucking pride” indeed! That means you too, David Remick.