Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Bari Weiss Quits! (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Ministry of Pain
- Start date
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Your point being that the liberal MSM does not report any news that shines a bad light on the Left?
You're welcome?
Last edited by a moderator:
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I was listening to a podcast about the Harpers letter and the fallout from that. I thought it was interesting that they also singled out Twitter in their discussion too.
I am not on Twitter, so what is it about that platform that would make it more likely that Cancel Culture would come out of it- more popular? Less moderated? the way their algorithms work?
timschochet
Footballguy
I don’t agree with you. I never heard of Bari Weiss before yesterday. I HAVE heard of the debate about cancel culture but I doubt most of the public have or could tell you what it’s about or what the term even means. Meanwhile we have three crises going on: the virus, the economy, the aftermath of the death of George Floyd. And then we have the election. These 4 issues are dominating every minute of news in this country and there’s little room for anything else. Even the Glee star drowning in the Lake gets a minute or two. How much time is an unknown editorial writer resigning going to get? Zero.
To be fair, he answered your question a lot more than proving whatever point there was.
He said MSNBC and CNN didn't cover the Weiss story.
You asked him how he knew that. Which was a good question.
He answered with a link to an article detailing how MSNBC and CNN didn't cover it supporting his statement.
That's how discussion is supposed to work.
Please Tim....President Trump changing campaign managers rates headlines in the MSM during this same time?
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Fair enough, this isn't the media bias thread. Just not sure Fox news is ever a good link, especially when it pertains to what the left might be thinking or reporting.
Thanks for the link Opie.
timschochet
Footballguy
Of course it does. And should. The election is one of the main stories. That sort of thing will always get major coverage.
Depends on how it fits one's narrative and how much one cares about what she and others said about it.
And that's cool. We can disagree about that.
The biggest thing I've learned is how little impact the NYTimes has.
All good, Buddy. And yes, I can see how this will likely cover some of the media bias stuff. In fact, I think that's mostly what she and Sam Harris are saying.
timschochet
Footballguy
I don’t think any editorial section has much impact these days. The investigative journalists of the Times (and Washington Post, and other large papers) have a huge impact IMO. For instance their exposure of the Clinton email scandal changed the 2016 election result.Depends on how it fits one's narrative and how much one cares about what she and others said about it.
And that's cool. We can disagree about that.
The biggest thing I've learned is how little impact the NYTimes has.
No problem Karma....but that is one of Fox's shticks....they report what others don't...or won't, report.
It's up to the viewer to decide if it was even worth reporting in the first place.
There's even a YouTube channel entitled, "What the MSM was afraid to tell you".
Its amazing what isn't reported!
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Or- they reported it because Fox viewers like hearing that the left is intolerant. It fits their world view.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Fair enough. You also know I am not going to click on that YouTube channel if you have paid attention to any of my posts. We will drop it.
You are correct.
Fox viewers like to hear the truth.
That's why they tune in.
Goya mucho?
Last edited by a moderator:
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I might listen to the pod again, as I think they answered these questions in there, but does anybody here have an answer to this?
Possum
Footballguy
Fox certainly tailors their reporting to viewers on the right, the same way the majority of major news outlets tailor their reporting to those on the left. Unfortunately that makes it all too easy to dismiss anything that comes out from either side as propaganda when it doesn't fit our particular world view.
but as a fellow liberal who shares Weiss' disdain with the quasi-religious conformity of thought that is now infiltrating the Democratic party, I don't think it's all that hard to see that there's plenty of intolerance on both sides of the aisle these days.
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
Tim sounds like my wife here...how can this person be famous? I've never heard of her.
It's a Pauline Kael take.
The story isn't Bari Weiss. Most people are not familiar with her and probably don't care to be.
The story is the New York Times. Most people have heard of it. It's a story that warrants coverage, IMO. Not really news coverage, but plenty of commentary.
The story is the New York Times. Most people have heard of it. It's a story that warrants coverage, IMO. Not really news coverage, but plenty of commentary.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
The question being is whether or not the accusations surrounding the NY Times are accurate and true. And whether the claims spill into other news operations. I'm guessing at some level they are, but I don't think that the accuser's letter is a very good vehicle for that discussion. It plays too much to a certain audience in ways that I think it is too easy to reject as
. For example I think six weeks after the NY Times arguably threw away all of their purported standards to post a conservative voice about the protests is a bit too soon to argue that such voices are nearly impossible to publish. In the past few days I have also seen conflicting tweets about was going on live in meetings. I think for those likely to disagree with her she has made it too easy to dismiss all of this as lacking any credibility. Which is dangerous in that I suspect there is something to her claims but where can one on the outside actually go to have a clue as to what is real, what is spin, and maybe even what is just imagined? She claims that there were internal attacks on in house systems, clearly they can be investigated. Similar to attack on social media. I can't imagine that if these exist that no one would find them and once found no one will publish them. Doesn't seem possible. So if and when that happens there seems to be something to discuss. But until then what is the story that we should be discussing? Which of her accusations should we be running with? I just don't know how to weed through it and find them.
TheMagus
Footballguy
With all due respect, this opinion that CNN, MSNBC, et al have some underhanded motive to not report on this story is a bit confusing to me. I got an hour break this morning and decided to turn on the news (CNN). The reason I did that is because I have many worries right now and wanted to get some news on what was happening with the COVID pandemic. Was making the hard decision to send my daughter to camp this summer the wrong choice? Will schools open in the fall or will we go back to online learning which didn't go well in the spring for my 5 year old? if schools don't open will my wife have to go back to part time or quit her job? How bad is the economy and should I worry about my own employment? When/if will I ever see my parents again if schools do open considering we could be carriers - both are young but high risk?
I'm sorry but when I turned on CNN this morning if they were not talking about COVID (they were) and they were waxing poetic about some editorial columnist I never heard of resigning from the NYT because she was unfairly treated, I would have changed the channel and been a bit annoyed. Like there is nothing more important going on in the world that the news channels would be talking about this crap?
I'm sorry but when I turned on CNN this morning if they were not talking about COVID (they were) and they were waxing poetic about some editorial columnist I never heard of resigning from the NYT because she was unfairly treated, I would have changed the channel and been a bit annoyed. Like there is nothing more important going on in the world that the news channels would be talking about this crap?
Last edited by a moderator:
supermike80
Footballguy
Sure yes because on a 24 hour news channel they can only talk about one subject, ever.
Weak argument dude.
-jb-
Footballguy
supermike80
Footballguy
If you say so...I don't watch CNN or MSNBC nor do I peruse their electronic offerings, so I would have to take the word of this thread for that.
-jb-
Footballguy
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Help me please. What is there to talk about? At least at this moment?
If the accusations are pretty much veritably true than this will eventually be a "bomb shell" scandal (maybe scandals) that no one shuts up about for months, but until that happens what is there?
Summer Wheat
Footballguy
This is is why I really have no faith or trust in any of our media outlets these days. At one time I thought the NY Times was a reputable news source, now I rank them a notch below The National Enquirer.Depends on how it fits one's narrative and how much one cares about what she and others said about it.
And that's cool. We can disagree about that.
The biggest thing I've learned is how little impact the NYTimes has.
supermike80
Footballguy
Sure Ill help. 2 Points. 1) I was replying to the guy who seems to think a 24 hour news channel should only have one story. That was my ONLY comment
2) I actually hate it when news outlets tell on each other and I think it's childish. CNN does their FOX News did this!! Of FOX with their CNN did this!! It's silly and petty and does more to show how stupid all media can be.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
In the second link is this quote "When a clear and compassionate thinker like Bari Weiss is witch-hunted off the New York Times, you know we are living in 'The Crucible.'" I understand that the reference is to the play which used the Salem witch trials as a means to criticize McCarthyism. But when it comes to the free market of ideas I have in the past been offered another analogy using crucibles. Basically that the crucible of public debate tries to pulverize ideas and good ideas hold up and bad ones are reduced to dust and blow away. Are we confusing silencing of debate with destroying bad ideas? I think we do. And in both directions. We should openly exchange all honest, reasoned, informed opinions. Not silence them based on who is speaking. But once the idea is out in the free market is should be mercilessly attacked. It should be forced to holdup or be pulverized into history.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Sure but is there something here that needs to be talked about? I keep coming back because I fear I am missing something. What am I missing? Are any of my replies here even relevant to anything? What is the story?
Hi @Bottomfeeder Sports The story is what Maurile said above that you replied to.
Now whether that's something that needs to be talked about is obviously up for debate. Clearly, people like Sam Harris and many others have said it's something worth discussing. Others disagree. And that's cool.
Sand
Footballguy
Sure. It's a solid confirmation that this organization is out of the news business and into the ideological orthodoxy delivery business. We've known this for a long time and this is the last nail.
On one hand it's not important to talk about because what was written is blatantly obvious. In the other hand it is important to talk about because so many refuse to believe what that resignation letter put forth.
----
My only question here is why didn't this person screenshot all these harassing messages and sue the pants off of the NYT? That's slam dunk.
Last edited by a moderator:
Lutherman2112
Footballguy
Do something bad = fired
Do something really bad = paid administrative leave
Quit before the complete backlash of firing conservative writers hired at the advent of the Trump administration = 1500 word missive where it's not their fault
Do something really bad = paid administrative leave
Quit before the complete backlash of firing conservative writers hired at the advent of the Trump administration = 1500 word missive where it's not their fault
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Your last sentence doesn't give you pause about all of the rest of her accusations? Would not the kind of harassment she alleges be similar to the Washington Post story? I mean it lacks the "sexual" piece but it makes up for by being in NY and the "paper of record".
This is what makes the "story is about the NY Times" pretty meaningless. For conservatives it just kicks confirmation bias into over drive. For liberals it kicks a different confirmation bias into gear. For someone who wants to figure this out there is no reason to believe that she is just full of it, but no reason to accept her at her word either as many don't seem to add up.
For a new example I am sure that Twitter and other social media is rather influential in the sense that they interject themselves into the news, but I cannot grasp that any large media operation shying away from the "wrath of social media" from simply a "any publicity is good publicity" perspective. To say that things aren't published because of social media just is contrary to this idea. Maybe social media force higher standards - pretty sure I don't believe that. Should it be true that articles and commentaries are buried out of fear of backlash I would need to rethink this idea. But based on what? A few sentences in her letter?
BladeRunner
Footballguy
On a somewhat side note, I keep hearing about this "paper of record". Definitely needs to change to a reliable paper instead of one that is nothing but the propaganda arm of the DNC.
I know people like to think the NY Times is some exalted, beyond reproach paper, but it hasn't been anything like that in a long, long time. It's just another biased rag.
BladeRunner
Footballguy
Also, the left had no problem believing Blasey-Ford with absolutely ZERO evidence or corroboration but simply her word, but now this one you won't accept at her word because....why again? Now you want absolute proof (let's disregard the fact that there IS actual evidence with this one)?
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
I believe that her charges against the NY Times deserve to be investigated by the media. If she makes a more formal complaint then maybe the harassment charges are investigated by law enforcement. I think that saying that her letter confirms what you knew all along is horribly premature whether it confirms that the NY Times has lost credibility or it confirms that conservatives that call themselves moderates are not true participants in the market place of ideas. I think those are the two extremes. I doubt either is fully correct, but at this point there is nothing much to discuss that can get any closer to understanding whether one or the other is closer to the truth (at least in this specific case).
I most certainly have my own biases and beliefs. I have most certainly applied them her letter and as such her letter just doesn't jive with what I think I know. Am I wrong? Maybe, but no one is making much of a case either way. We seem to be expected to just jump to a conclusion and be done with it. My mind doesn't work that way.
So I guess my question is do you expect to see a flurry of future articles about this where one or a few of the accusations are investigated and to some degree there will be those confirming her stories and others rejecting it with various levels of supporting evidence? Or is this letter the beginning and end of the story? If this is it then I should move on because there will never be enough to convince me that she is spot on or completely full of it. It there is more to come then why should I accept anyone's word at this point? Shouldn't we wait to see rather than just say "yep the NY Times has a fatally flawed process in the newsroom"? Maybe it does?
Oh, and I'm originally from the suburbs of an East Coast city with an inferiority crisis so discrediting NY things is part of my DNA - but that is another one of those biases.
No worries. It's probably best to chalk it up to your originalI believe that her charges against the NY Times deserve to be investigated by the media. If she makes a more formal complaint then maybe the harassment charges are investigated by law enforcement. I think that saying that her letter confirms what you knew all along is horribly premature whether it confirms that the NY Times has lost credibility or it confirms that conservatives that call themselves moderates are not true participants in the market place of ideas. I think those are the two extremes. I doubt either is fully correct, but at this point there is nothing much to discuss that can get any closer to understanding whether one or the other is closer to the truth (at least in this specific case).
I most certainly have my own biases and beliefs. I have most certainly applied them her letter and as such her letter just doesn't jive with what I think I know. Am I wrong? Maybe, but no one is making much of a case either way. We seem to be expected to just jump to a conclusion and be done with it. My mind doesn't work that way.
So I guess my question is do you expect to see a flurry of future articles about this where one or a few of the accusations are investigated and to some degree there will be those confirming her stories and others rejecting it with various levels of supporting evidence? Or is this letter the beginning and end of the story? If this is it then I should move on because there will never be enough to convince me that she is spot on or completely full of it. It there is more to come then why should I accept anyone's word at this point? Shouldn't we wait to see rather than just say "yep the NY Times has a fatally flawed process in the newsroom"? Maybe it does?
Oh, and I'm originally from the suburbs of an East Coast city with an inferiority crisis so discrediting NY things is part of my DNA - but that is another one of those biases.
and move on. This one was over before is started for lots of people. That's just how it works. All good.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
Alright I'm done until there is something more to discuss than each other's gut reactions. In that case they are all what they are.
Hope you have a great weekend and that other side doesn't stress your staff out too much around here.
Thanks. No stress at all.Alright I'm done until there is something more to discuss than each other's gut reactions. In that case they are all what they are.
Hope you have a great weekend and that other side doesn't stress your staff out too much around here.
Joe Summer
Footballguy
I agree with Joe's assessment that the NY Times has little impact.
Which is part of the reason why the MSM did not give the story much coverage to begin with.
Which is part of the reason why the MSM did not give the story much coverage to begin with.
Sand
Footballguy
The media is straight jacketed into their line of thought. This story isn't true because it has been deemed best that this story isn't true, therefore deserves no coverage.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
I think the narrative about cancel culture being a widespread problem overstates the issue, and is mostly a talking point used by those on the right to push back, or those who consider themselves moderate to feel comfortable with their “both sides” position. In reality, I think cancel culture is an extremely rare but overall effective tool that helps guide social behavior in a positive way.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Writer for influential paper get lots of negative feedback from her audience over the course of a few years for her takes on several controversial hot button issues. Employing newspaper continues to employ her despite said feedback. Writer grows tired of negative feedback, cancels herself, becomes martyr for those supporting her views.
In the marketplace for ideas at the paper of record, Weiss struggled. Odds on her ending up on FoxNews or the Washington Examiner within the next 6 months?
Similar threads
