Quote:
Originally Posted by goofyballer
This is a bad post.
It's an issue of platform, too. If an organization you supported in some fashion gave money to, say, Ben Shapiro speaking tours, you'd be like "what the ****, that's insane" and rightfully consider terminating your relationship with them. Giving space in your nationally distributed newspaper to print super dumb articles by dip****s like Bari Weiss, Bret Stephens, and David Brooks is...not that different?
I didn't cancel my NYT subscription because I am personally offended every time they publish an idiotic right-wing take; I was not looking for affirmation of my world view, as you claim. It's because I think they're doing a bad thing with their newspaper with their Very Serious People Consider All Viewpoints (As Long As None Of Those Viewpoints Support Trump Or Bernie Sanders) act, and I didn't want to be part of supporting it anymore.
edit: to add to this, I think the dichotomy you present ("maybe people should look at newspapers as a flawed source of news rather than affirmation of their world view") is wrong and ignores a better third option: maybe newspapers shouldn't be in the business of posting dumb hot takes at all, from any viewpoint.
What is missing from this analysis is that the action you're taking (subscribing or not subscribing to the NYT) really has no impact on the thing you're trying to affect (David Brooks). It doesn't really matter if Bari Weiss indirectly gets $0.02 a month from your subscription bux. It is meaningless. Honestly, you should be much more concerned about your cable subscription if you have one. That's like $1-2/month directly to Fox News, plus maybe another $1 to CNN. You're probably personally buying a cup of coffee for Wolf Blitzer every year, you monster.
You're obviously welcome to apply whatever ethical standards you choose to your consumption decisions, but I'm just saying it's very hard to imagine that boycotting NYT is really the most effective lever to pull.
Re: your edit, that's not an option for people to take, it's a way that newspapers could change the way they do business. I agree with you that divorcing editorial from straight news would be great, except that the newspapers would immediately go bankrupt and then there would be no straight news.