The perception that NYT -- a staid corporate institution so set in its ways it's called "The Old Gray Lady" -- is particularly liberal is more or less manufactured by men like Douthat and Stephens so they can get jobs there, while discrediting and diminishing liberal output.
-
Show this thread
-
Two prongs: shut up or discredit the liberal output, increase the conservative output, and if you'll notice... it doesn't matter who works for the NYT or who gets the column space, the criticism of it as being liberally biased *never* diminishes.
1 reply 24 retweets 205 likesShow this thread -
Alexandra Erin Retweeted Some guy
Absolutely. Honestly? Bari Weiss is just about as reactionary an editor as they could ask for.https://twitter.com/randonerd/status/1166379284904046593 …
Alexandra Erin added,
1 reply 7 retweets 138 likesShow this thread -
Conservatives rule the roost at the opinion side of the NYT and at the very least they heavily skew the coverage on the reporting side.
1 reply 18 retweets 147 likesShow this thread -
On college campuses, conservatives run the same game. Liberal professors espousing liberal ideals are labeled "a threat to free speech" - whole courses are deemed inimical to freedom (dare we say, politically incorrect?), whole subjects rendered taboo by conservative demands.
2 replies 23 retweets 167 likesShow this thread -
We can't offer trigger warnings... why, telling someone what's in a story or lecture is AGAINST FREE SPEECH. Pronouns must never be spoken of. Feminism is verboten, that's the market place of ideas means. Don't like a speaker? Protesting is THE HECKLER'S VETO.
1 reply 12 retweets 142 likesShow this thread -
Bret Stephens is so used to winning this game that he was very casual about CC:ing the provost on his email about speech he found offensive. He says he had no thought of professional consequences....
1 reply 13 retweets 163 likesShow this thread -
...but he has not, to my knowledge, offered a better explanation. I fully believe he did not intend to, say, demand the professor's job. I think he was content to rely on the *implication* to carry the threat.
2 replies 11 retweets 170 likesShow this thread -
And I believe he thought that because frequently the implication is enough. He had a whole lot more followers than his victim. He has the institutional might of the Paper of Record behind him (even referenced it in his subject line).
1 reply 10 retweets 116 likesShow this thread -
In truth, I believe he didn't want the offender fired any more than he wanted the offender to come and say it to his face. What he wanted was for the other man to back down, meekly. To show that his remarks lacked courage and integrity. To be put in his place.
2 replies 10 retweets 162 likesShow this thread
Precisely. I don't think Stephens wanted him fired, just humbled and shut up.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.