2. Like any long running publication, the New Yorker has various archeological layers of identity. At bottom there is Harold Ross's topical urbanite tip-sheet. Then Shawn's more contemplative & leisurely literary journal.
-
-
Show this thread
-
3. After the brief Gottlieb interregnum there was Tina Brown's buzz-seeking celebrity rag. Remnick's innovation as editor has been to return magazine to it's topical roots, an outgrowth of his own background as a newspaper reporter.
Show this thread -
4. The thing is about Remnick is at core he's a newspaper reporter of an old fashioned kind, a newshound, a scoop-sniffer. His biggest hits as editor have been newsy scoops (Hersh on Iraq torture, Farrow on Weinstein).
Show this thread -
5. Under Remnick, even New Yorker fiction has become more journalistic and topical, as
@michellelegro notedhttps://twitter.com/michellelegro/status/1032678556357353472 …Show this thread -
6. Now you give an old newshound like Remnick a chance to interview a former White House advisor and he's going to jump on it. A chance to really dig his teeth into the news.
Show this thread -
7. The mistake Remnick made is that the New Yorker Festival of Deep Thought (or whatever it's called) is not a place for journalism. It's a place for high-end consumption, a cash cow where the magazine trades off its brand to rich audience.
Show this thread -
8. At the New Yorker Feast of Intellectuality, the paying customers are given a vicarious taste of the magazine by meeting writers of magazine & people of the sort the magazine celebrates.
Show this thread -
9. This gets at the crucial issue. If you headline Bannon at the New Yorker Festival of Ideas, you're giving the magazine's imprimatur to Bannon, almost like inviting him to be a writer (as opposed to the subject of a profile) https://twitter.com/SuzanneNossel/status/1036775347180711936 …
This Tweet is unavailable.Show this thread -
10. Anyways, I think Remnick messed up but he shouldn't be defined by this. For a good appreciation of Remnick's tenure as editor, go to
@jelani9's TLShow this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Because liberals are dumb and believe that because right-wingers SAY they want an objective, honest, debate where each side makes good-faith arguments in a respectful environment in a sincere attempt to arrive at the truth, that's what right-wingers ACTUALLY want.
-
What many liberal journos don't seem to grasp is that while they themselves may scoff at the arguments of their racist/fascist subjects, many white readers, steeped in white supremacy, read that shit and think, "hm, he makes a good point."
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.