Is there a politics thread? Guess I'm making one

[SnowFire]

I dunno.  I could write about this for days.  I'm keeping at this one even though everyone disagrees with me because it strikes me as a profoundly bad move solely from a tactical perspective, let alone a moral one, to declare that only blessed liberals are allowed to talk.  Okay okay you didn't say that, but "we liberals will only reward straight-up liberal outlets who don't include conservatives."  It's not gonna be effective in advancing the cause; it's counter-productive.

A) The right has sung a song for a long time about the biased liberal media and how you can't trust it.  Suppose the NYT backs down tomorrow and says "We apologize to the progressive community, we'll only hire new writers we think you'll like."  Does this make the NYT appear particularly credible as a source?  Sure, the harder core conservatives don't care already, but to the extent that (idiot) centrists exist, and they do, you know, the "Trump is a sleazeball but Hillary is crooked too" types, this isn't good for convincing them.

B) There are plenty of all-liberal outlets you can support, like, say, the Democratic Party.  (Or even the Socialist Party or Bernie-affliated fundraisers.)  Good!  Those have a place.  But what's also good, and sometimes even better?  A nice "neutral" source that happens to say the same thing.  "Reality has a well-known liberal bias" and all.  Take a look at various international organizations during the Cold War; they had nice neutral voting rules and identified themselves as international ones, but really, they danced to the tune of the US.  Then Republicans and others became idiots and forgot about this and whined, not realizing that paying the UN / World Bank / etc. is an extremely cheap way to exert power indirectly.  It's not the US telling you this; it's these friendly international bureaucrats (who are wholly absorbed in the US & "West's's system, and will draw you into it on their terms).  These international orgs can do shit the US can't do directly, or if the US did directly would be ineffective and look like neo-colonialism.  In the same way, a "neutral" organization that happens to dance to your tune can be highly useful.  Classic example: the US Chamber of Commerce, at least since 2000 or so.  It is basically an arm of the Republican Party, but one with the tiniest shred of independence that both makes the Chamber look more respectable when it parrots Republican talking points, and serves as something of an warning sign in the rare instances they DO disagree.  (Actually just happened again recently, with the Chamber disliking Ryancare.  In the same way, if the NY Times thinks the Dems are making a mistake, that's a bit of a "hey guys, are you SURE you want to do this" alert too.)  Or, for a Democratic example, various environmental organizations like the Sierra Club are more effective when they very occasionally endorse a Republican.  They can dangle the carrot of "hey, you might get our endorsement" and have SOME pull over Republicans as well by doing this; if they simply declared "the best thing for the environment is a Democratic Speaker of the House" - which everyone knows to be true - they just make themselves a branch of the Democratic Party and weaken themselves, even if it's true.

C) Does having opinion show up as fact encourage the idea that all facts are just opinions, so pick the ones you want to believe and like the most?  Absolutely!  But that's water under the bridge.  And it's not getting fixed any time soon regardless of editorial policy.

There's lots of things to hit the NYT editorial section on, but this ain't one of 'em, and even if you really don't like it, it still doesn't impact the rest of the paper a bit.  It's circular firing squad, let's attack the NYT for doing something that IMO is actually more likely to help the liberal cause, if that is your sole objective.  I know I used this example already, but Congressional Committees.  There's a reason they're often times 9 majority party members, 4 minority party members or the like rather than just 9 majority party members.  And why minority members, if they really hate the way things are going, will sit out and boycott!  The message is more convincing, more respectable if it comes with some minority viewpoints, even though anyone with savvy knows that the 9 majority members were the only ones who mattered.


EDIT: Ninja'd by Alex (I was just going on anyway to myself).  Well.  I'm not gonna stand up for climate change denial, obviously.  But, I stand by "it's the Opinion section" where a lot of stupid shit is permissible.  Also, there's "provocateur making stupid shit comments out of field" (which applies to a looooot of editorialists) and "is sincere denialist."  The impression I got was more the first.  From the ThinkProgress article attacking Stephens:

And while the Times asserts that Stephens brings to the paper, “profound intellectual depth, honesty and bravery,” Stephens won’t even stand by what he wrote for the Journal. He actually told the Huffington Post he is a “climate agnostic.”

"won't stand by what he wrote for the Journal" sounds like a good thing to me!  Sounds more like he was randomly shit-talking.  Which is stupid as all hell but not unusual.  WSJ is paywalled as usual, but "Liberalism's imaginary enemies" sounds like vanilla conservative ranting about how climate change Isn't Really That Bad.  Which is incredibly wrong, yes, but not beyond the pale wrong like Nazism.  (Anyone with a subscription able to read https://www.wsj.com/articles/liberalisms-imaginary-enemies-1448929043 , by the way?  I want to see just how stupid it is myself...)

[Cotigo]

You're missing the point. The problem isn't that it's a conservative view. The problem is that it's actively fucking harmful disinformation. Claims that climate change isn't real are claims that can be verified, fact-checked. Facts are not up for debate.

That's the issue. There's a difference between a paper refusing to publish outright lies based on stuff you can fact-check, and a newspaper nixing a submission based solely on the politics of it. Would you not agree that you'd think less of a newspaper if they published an opinion piece advocating for watering our crops/gardens/plants with Pepsi? And not only that but defending it after readers call them out on publishing outright lies?

The fact that "It's their opinion, you can't expect them to base it on fact!" is the default mindset you're approaching the issue with is a huge symptom of the core issue. A large part of the populace refuses to even listen to facts because facts don't line up with their political views. NYT defending the dude because millions believe him doesn't make them bastions of free speech and expression, it makes them look like a joint that doesn't give a shit about facts.

EDIT: Oh my god I just read the first sentence to your reply that you ninjaed in and I think I don't have to read the rest. You really don't get what the issue is, do you?

You also ignore that there are plenty of avenues for people to express their opinions that don't require a news source to call into question how much it gives a shit about fact-checking.

[dunie]

I am so very happy to wake up to a thread of woke gamers who are critical of the economics of politics and knowledge production. I don't mean to taunt either, but thank you Fenrir, Alex, Grefter, Cotigo, Shale, Jim & the Duck. I would never create the space or pay for the perpetuation of falsehoods, or any opinion which itself always requires the task of investigation. Having such a bad portfolio before you of twisting information is the easiest thing to reject were one not bent on shoddy arguments of discrimination, or even the more disturbing fact that NYT's is inviting a particular demographic that seeks no real conversations or debates with its existing readership - for money and clickbait. Anyway, I really appreciate you all. Thanks.

edit* won't stand behind strong verbal emotions that are not mine though (aka a southern socially liberal way of saying not behind the name-calling)

[Ranmilia]

"Alternative facts" aren't even a conservative-exclusive phenomenon.  I would absolutely think less of the NYT if they hired a columnist who believes vaccinations cause autism, for the exact same reasons.  Only a tiny bit less so because there isn't a clear and present gestalt of liberal forces in power and attempting to actually push harmful laws based on falsehoods about vaccines. 

[The Duck]

It seems like Snowfire is having a completely different conversation than everyone else. Fenrir's stance was never about upholding liberal bubbles by hating on conservative viewpoints, but rather ones that are completely incorrect. No one here was arguing against the utility of having other viewpoints in decision making. The issue here isn't about political ideology but being able to agree on basic factual premises. If you don't have that, you can't even begin having reasonable discussions. Entertaining these views isn't about ideology. There's anti-vax sentiment from the left that I also find disdainful and that I do not think deserves this platform either.

The NYT and Washington Post ("Democracy Dies in Darkness") have touted themselves as safeguards against falsehoods and misinformation and they have no obligation to hire someone who peddles in horseshit. Even if you don't agree with that, then it's an opportunity cost because there are a lot of different voices on the left and right that they could have picked instead.

"It's just the opinion section" is a really bad justification for this decision. This isn't just some whacko sending letters to the editor, he's getting a regular column every week and he has pushed views that are wrong and harmful, ones that will be legitimized by this platform. I think it would be one thing if the view were "climate change is real but it isn't a pressing concern," because there at least you're starting with a factual premise that you can base a discussion on priorities on. Climate denialism is another issue altogether.

PS,
Best of Bret Stephens:

http://fusion.net/the-best-of-bret-stephens-your-newest-new-york-times-o-1794297718

[Grefter]

Edit before actually posting but Inhad all these words and the suddenly Duck Post.   Tldr; fuck the Opinions section.

Man you know you fam and all and don't want this to seem/feel like ganging up on you.

Like, NYT is free to do that, they can make that their brand all they want.  I just am flat out not interested in that being the face of "neutrality" in journalism.  I want neutral journalism to be that, in the journalism.  Present stories and facts from as neutral a point of view as you can.   The place for your bias is in your editorials, BUT I think hiring people on just to do opinion pieces is garbage in a news source.  That isn't editorializing, as in the people heading up Editting who have to be across most of the damned news in the thing putting out their opinion.  Someone paid just to do articles?  That is just paying people to give you juicey hot takes that will shift copies, either in rage bait or pandering to their base.  If you must get discourse in the paper do it through reader mail (or something else because it isn't 1977) that you are at least remotely detached from (though of course the choice of what to publish is still something).  Economically supporting a point of view, especially when you are doing it specifically for that point of view IS supporting that view.

It is trashy tabloid journalism, which is fine for plenty of topics, but can fuck right off out of my politics and world news.  I am more interested in a biased news source I can read parse and take into account for it than one that builds up a semblance and image of Quality TM and then uses it to peddle garbage pieces in the name of fairness.

Also to just directly address it, do I think NYT should publish someone with views as far left as mine?  Not if they want to be a centrist/neo-liberal nation of some kind.  I mean frankly if they offered it I would either be taking them up cynically for a pay check or to try and abuse their reach/branding, since based on there usual dialogue on things I would talk about my politics doesn't exist, as if Antifa is made up of Anarchists only aka the left wing equivalent of "thug".  Shorthand for "these people with ridiculous ideas that you don't need to pay attention to" as if A) Anarchists have no ideas worth talking about and B) those are the only forms of left wing politics that are prepared to be militant.



Edit - okay so upon clicking Duck Link, the quote on sexual assault makes me want to punch my phone.  That is the most tone deaf circular argument I have ever seen and the reference of 2 "debunked" assault cases disproving that there is a rape culture on campuses is so fucking intellectually dishonest it hurts.

[Fenrir]

Yes I'll echo others here.
The vaccines causing autism comparison is pretty apt.


The unfortunate endgame of capitalism is that if you have enough money and want to spread an obvious lie, you can create think tanks and buy influence until eventually half the population will believe it and the NYT will publish it.

[SnowFire]

I do not fucking get it.  Yeah, there's a line somewhere for "not appropriate for the papers."  It is generally at things like advocating violence.  Otherwise, it's a free-for-all.

The whole point of being confident in your ideas is that they will win out in an open exchange.  You let people publish their stupid shit, and then you mock them for it for being wrong.  You don't soft-censor it.  Now, yes, there are a billion exceptions, I'm not in favor of those assholes handing out pamphlets outside abortion clinics or whatever.  If there is one place where it should be the most open, it's the newspaper opinion section, which is the area of the body public that is most sacredly reserved for "I'm an asshole and here's my opinion, fight me."  If you think that should only be for "correct" discourse, you will regret it.  That is the path to fucking Vladimir Putin's Russia.  In fact, here's an article on the remnants of the Russian press from the Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/16/business/media/vladimir-putin-moscow-press-trump.html?_r=0

You want to win?  Then argue for lots of freedom to publish whatever shit you want without suffering a boycott if you don't toe the party line perfectly.  This shit plays into Trump's hands.

To my knowledge, conservatives don't generally complain to Fox News when Fox hires liberal commentators.  (Most famously the Colmes of Hannity & Colmes, back in the day.)  They "get it"; that these liberals are there to lose.  They get to say their piece and then be shouted down by twice as many conservatives, but they're there, they get to provide their "wrong" viewpoint.  It's the same thing.  Stephens is being hired to say his piece and then lose.

You're missing the point. The problem isn't that it's a conservative view. The problem is that it's actively fucking harmful disinformation. Claims that climate change isn't real are claims that can be verified, fact-checked. Facts are not up for debate.

Fenrir's stance was never about upholding liberal bubbles by hating on conservative viewpoints, but rather ones that are completely incorrect.

they have no obligation to hire someone who peddles in horseshit.

spoilers but IT'S ALL COMPLETELY INCORRECT AND HORSESHIT.  Fuck, do I have to be the one pointing out the garbage coming from the White House these days?  The stream of lies headed that direction?  You're not going to find many "untainted" conservatives, and those that you can won't be perceived as conservative enough, because they're too sane/rational.  Sorry, but if the line was "not completely incorrect" than in my opinion there shouldn't be ANY conservatives writing in newspapers.  It's all almost as bad as vaccines-cause-autism!  Which is really bad, yes!

The Duck's point about there being opportunity cost from not hiring someone else is fair, but I struggle to imagine the possible alternative if we assume that a rightist is needed for balance.   How many honest conservative writers/intellectuals/commentators who only supports things backed up by science (so no climate change denialism & the like) who are also a full-throated Trump supporter are there?  I can think of, perhaps, one, and said support is quite contrarian and not really for the same reasons as most Trump supporters.  It's also especially weird in a newspaper.  Nobody, nobody reads every article in a newspaper, so you're always paying for some content you don't care about, but which piece of content is different between people.  Nobody is forcing you to read Stephens if you hate him.  (And I for one would probably only hate-read him to get some idea of what conservatives are saying.  Which is useful to know, too.)

Also to just directly address it, do I think NYT should publish someone with views as far left as mine?   Not if they want to be a centrist/neo-liberal nation of some kind.

Well, Charles Blow is pretty darn left, IIRC.  But even if you personally weren't up for it, what's so weird about wanting a range of views that focuses on the left?  1 conservative, 2 centrists, 3 center-leftists, 3 liberals, 2 ultra-liberals?  Isn't that a more interesting set than say 10 identical liberals?  And even if you disagree, you can surely acknowledge that *some* people might be interested in that?

The unfortunate endgame of capitalism is that if you have enough money and want to spread an obvious lie, you can create think tanks and buy influence until eventually half the population will believe it and the NYT will publish it.

Well, yes.  No argument here.  Blame for that lies in the Koch Brothers & others for helping spread climate change denialism to begin with.  Past a certain point, yeah, it does become a part of society that you can't escape.  Put things another way, you're only going so far in Chinese politics if you openly talk about Mao being an incompetent murderer.  It's true, but you have to pretend the official story is correct, and work around the margins.  And the problem goes deeper than just astroturf money-funded beliefs.  More alarmingly, look at something like ethnic tensions.  What do you do as a politician in a place like Myanmar, where 80% of the population despise the Rohingya for stupid reasons?

Having such a bad portfolio before you of twisting information is the easiest thing to reject were one not bent on shoddy arguments of discrimination, or even the more disturbing fact that NYT's is inviting a particular demographic that seeks no real conversations or debates with its existing readership - for money and clickbait

I have no idea what you're talking about with shoddy arguments of discrimination.  It sounds like the NYT will be *losing* money from this, anyway, but they're doing it anyway because it's the right thing.  What exactly is the NYT's evil plan here?  Become the favorite paper for firebrand conservatives?  Why is it so hard to believe that they'd want a dissenting view, that this doesn't imply they've abandoned their politics?

[Shale]

I do not fucking get it.  Yeah, there's a line somewhere for "not appropriate for the papers."  It is generally at things like advocating violence.  Otherwise, it's a free-for-all.

The whole point of being confident in your ideas is that they will win out in an open exchange.  You let people publish their stupid shit, and then you mock them for it for being wrong.  You don't soft-censor it. 

News outlets not publishing lies on equal footing with the truth isn't an open exchange of ideas, it's dereliction of the basic principles of journalism. Good ideas may win out over bad given enough time and sunlight, but the "sunlight" part is important -- there has to be some consideration of what the objective facts are. Putting truth and falsehood on an equal footing and expecting readers to resolve the conflict for themselves legitimizes liars as pundits or even experts, sows confusion and wrecks the "marketplace of ideas" model because it deprives readers/viewers/listeners of the framework necessary for choosing which argument to believe. Providing that framework is supposed to be our job.

When you instead print arguments by people like Stephens in the same venue you give to people who aren't lying it does the opposite, even if you also publish takedowns of their work, because you've abdicated any editorial judgment and are just throwing everything at the readers, saying "you figure it out." That's not how you convey information. That's how you confuse the shit out of people and prompt them to make decisions based on political affiliation, self-interest, rhetoric, etc. 

This isn't theory, it's easily observable from the last 30 years of national news coverage. The climate change "debate" shows pretty conclusively that when the subject at issue is far enough removed from people's own personal experience that they can't personally test it, no amount of scientific proof will overcome the influence of a committed group of liars.

[SnowFire]

Shale: Perhaps, but I just don't see how this won't boomerang.  Let me point out again that I read a fairly conservative paper back in the day, but one that nevertheless published a range of opinions from across the spectrum, and said "you figure it out."  Even though we're right and they're wrong, I can't see how this exact same argument wouldn't be used by conservatives to censor liberals in the "marketplace of ideas", and would have caused Young SnowFire to only read conservative columns instead.  After all, as far as least some of them are concerned, the Clintons are a committed group of liars who hoodwinked America in the '90s or something before using emails and Haiti charities for new evil.

I dunno.  I could go on about this for ages.  The world Donald Trump wants is one where there is no such thing as a "neutral" authority - there are only differing political opinions.  Don't trust the failing, lying New York Times.  To accept this and make the Times a "liberal" mouthpiece is to make the Times *weaker*, not stronger.  If the Times, as a neutral source, says everything that Trump says is bullshit, that is inherently more powerful than the Times as an actually partisan source.  Part of being an apparently neutral source is letting conservatives on, including ones who are really, really wrong about stuff and believe the lies that have been fed to the public for the last thirty years.

And to go more deeply into Fenrir's comment about what happens after you convince half the people some crazy idea is true...  well, yeah.  I think accepting that is important.  There's the truth, and there's what the people with guns *think* is the truth.  When you defend the first truth, which is important, you have to be careful to ensure you don't inadvertently give license for the second "truth" to suppress *your* beliefs.   The problem is that no matter how right we are and how wrong they are - and make no mistake, we are right, and they are wrong - simply from a perspective of power, there's no guarantee that the "right" side will be in the majority.  All throughout history, there have been unpopular, minority opinions that turned out to be powerfully right.   (Abolitionists!)  In societies that allow unpopular minorities to say shit that everyone else thinks is factually wrong, these viewpoints are allowed to fight it out and gain influence.  In societies that don't, they cover up a problem until it explodes, or else risk stagnation.  The price of letting ahead-of-the-curve people say their piece is letting piece-of-shit jerks who actually ARE wrong say their bit too.  I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it, and all that.  If liberalism gives up on this idea and thinks that people who are "factually incorrect" should not be allowed to say their piece, it will boomerang and be used as an excuse to clamp down on anyone who opposes the government.  You can't rely on some good philosopher-king to only suppress the actually incorrect opinions.  That goes double for right now!  So yeah, in a democracy, once enough people believe some shit, you have to give it its due.  That does NOT mean accepting it or saying the truth is somewhere in the middle, it means fighting it, but fighting it in the open. 

Shutting down the likes of Stevens risks inviting the wrong majority under Trump to shut down newspapers in the future because they're spreading fake, clearly incorrect news that dares speak against the regime, backed by a committed group of liars.  It's not a hypothetical threat, Trump has already upgraded his attacks on the media from mere whining.  It is in no way irrational to act against this threat by scrupulously upholding a commitment to including all points of view. 

[Ranmilia]

if the line was "not completely incorrect" than in my opinion there shouldn't be ANY conservatives writing in newspapers.....

Yeah, pretty much!

I struggle to imagine the possible alternative if we assume that a rightist is needed for balance.

We do not make that assumption.  Facts, journalistic ethics and integrity are the top priorities.  Balance is a ways down the list.

How many honest conservative writers/intellectuals/commentators who only supports things backed up by science (so no climate change denialism & the like) who are also a full-throated Trump supporter are there?  I can think of, perhaps, one, and said support is quite contrarian and not really for the same reasons as most Trump supporters.

Ok, I think I see what you're saying from this.  So the conflict here is between the obligations of newspapers to print and support facts and not falsehoods, and to present differing political viewpoints?  I would say the former absolutely has to take precedence.  If there aren't any Trump supporters who only support things backed by science, then as a consequence of that, yeah, I guess Trump supporters don't get their views presented in any news worth the paper it's printed on.  A rightist would certainly be nice for balance, but it is not needed in the same way that adherence to facts is needed.  If you pay that cost then your news starts to be worthless as actual news.  If you let "party lines" and political obligations extend that far, to making scientific facts matters of opinion, that destroys the whole foundation of journalism.

I don't agree that there is a meaningful difference between the Opinion section and the rest of the paper, or that the Opinions page is a sacred free speech battleground.  Maybe decades ago that was true, but not anymore, and definitely not to anyone who sees things in terms of the whole media being a biased ideological battleground, as conservatives are purported to do so.  What's actually going to happen is they run this guy's column, and conservatives nod their heads and go "See, liberals?  Climate denial is totally credible, it was printed in the NYT!"  "But it was only in the Opinion section-" does not matter, falls completely on deaf ears, "it was in the NYT which is a reputable source even to liberals!" and that becomes a new point of proof that further reinforces and legitimizes it. 

Fox News is not a preeminent brand with international reach and credibility.  Quite the opposite.  "Appeared on Fox" does not give anything weight or credibility.  Even people who watch Fox as their primary news source don't trust Fox implicitly, they know, as you say, that Fox is a biased outlet and any liberals on there are automatically there to lose.   The NYT *is* a brand trusted to provide factual reporting, and anything appearing in it - even Opinions - carries an implicit stamp of approval and legitimacy, one of the highest regarded in world news media.  At least, right now.  That's going to go downhill fast if they start hiring people who support climate denial and similar alternative facts, or report on them as credible in any way.  Maybe it gains a sliver of approval from American conservatives... at the cost of losing it everywhere else.

The Times maintains neutrality not by presenting all sides, but by sticking to facts.

Or from another, much simpler angle: advocating violence against immigrants and minorities is *also* an inherent part of the Trump supporter alt-right conservative platform.  If alternative facts aren't enough, perhaps that makes it more clear why we are saying this platform should not receive a voice of advocacy in reputable journalism, and why "provide a voice for both sides" can't take precedence over it?

https://medium.com/@juliaserano/free-speech-and-the-paradox-of-tolerance-e0547aefe538

Seen a ton of articles on the subject over the last few months, wish I had a better one at hand, annoyed this is all I can dig from specific memory at the moment.

Also yes Snowfire, we are chill, please do not take this personally or feel dogpiled. 

[Shale]

Shale: Perhaps, but I just don't see how this won't boomerang.

I don't see how it could -- there's no cause and effect relationship in this "boomerang," there's just assholes making an excuse for doing what they want to do anyway. Favorable coverage and a "we throw a bunch of spaghetti at the wall, you decide" paradigm in the media was hugely important to Trump's election and it didn't stop him from declaring war on the press within weeks of taking office. The excuse is not the actual reason -- they'll come up with a justification to do what they want no matter how deferential you are, unless you decide to cross the border into outright collaboration. If anything, the more the media plays into the "Democrats say X, Republicans say Y, who knows what truth is?" framework, the easier it gets for the noise machine to make up fake transgressions and be uncritically believed.

[superaielman]

I want some type of conservative voice in mainstream publications. Not because I want some kind of fair and balanced thing (I've long since accepted that for a lot of reasons the media leans towards a center left view of the world; which annoys the far left as much as it does the right), but because it helps protect against some of the  fake news claims. It's too easy to write off a media source if it's 100% of one political view and voice, and helps to lead to things like Infowars/Breitbart/etc gets traction with voters.   My local paper was largely left of center; they ran some right of center writers though  ot all. IE They refused to run Ann Coulter after 9-11 which is fair enough.

I would feel the same regardless of my politics.  American discourse has been badly hurt by tribalism on both sides but whoof, right wing media in particular is a special kind of dumpster fire.
The right has been seriously hurt on the whole by talk radio and the rise of the internet; it's destroyed the ability of publications like the National Review and the Weekly Standard to play gatekeeper. I don't know what the solution is other than purging the Limbaughs of the world with fire but that's not easy to implement.


E: I don't have an opinion on Stephens in particular, never really read him myself. Specifically to the point: are there any mainstream right wing/right of center writers that you wouldn't object to being hired for that post?

(If you did want to read a good right of center site, try this. Though they are very much #nevertrump so they are, like me, politically homeless atm: https://thebuckleyclub.com/ )

[Shale]

I want some type of conservative voice in mainstream publications.

Sure, but putting on my editor hat, I feel very strongly that if those voices can't pass a "don't be a habitual liar" test, that's not my fault.

[Reiska]

Okay, after reading the last two pages I felt like I had to weigh in a little bit.  (Disclaimer for everything I say below: for those who don't know since I don't tend to broadcast my politics too much, I generally identify as very liberal.)

I definitely understand/empathize with you, SnowFire, insofar as that the NYT (or indeed any reputable newspaper of record) editorial pages need a balance of opinions both liberal and conservative.  On that, I agree.  The trouble is, as everyone else in the thread has pointed out, separating legitimate matters of opinion (e.g. debates on the merits of, say, single-payer socialized medicine versus free-market insurance coverage) from things which are not matters of opinion no matter how much some people want to cast them as such (e.g. whether or not the Holocaust actually happened). 

Now, to be clear, I do think the editorial pages possibly have some place for discussion of climate change, so long as it is presented correctly, and the facts are appropriately laid out.  There is, I think, room for legitimate debate about to what extent humans have influenced or accelerate climate change versus how much it is a natural cycle (and I'm not sure even the scientists really agree overwhelmingly in that regard, other than "we have probably accelerated it some yes").  There is not, however, room for questioning whether climate change is actually happening or not; that it is, is a well-established fact. 

TL;DR: "but it's the opinion pages" is not an excuse for the NYT, or any newspaper, whether liberal-leaning or conservative-leaning or neutral, to give objective untruths a platform.  Objective lies do not belong anywhere on the pages of any reputable newspaper of record, other than in articles identifying them as such; to print them on the opinion pages under the banner of "but it's an opinion!" cheapens the credibility of your entire newspaper and lends credibility to those lies.  Period.  If you cannot find enough conservative voices speaking the truth to balance the viewpoints on an opinion page, that indicates a problem with the conservative movement, not with the ideological balance of the opinion pages.

[Cotigo]

There's the truth, and there's what the people with guns *think* is the truth.  When you defend the first truth, which is important, you have to be careful to ensure you don't inadvertently give license for the second "truth" to suppress *your* beliefs. 

Oh my god. That you don't understand how ironic this passage is killing me. Making lies look legitimate by dressing them up as news is a large part of why it's so impossible to talk to the half of the country you disagree with. Not only are we operating on different sets of facts, but it's also night impossible to the uninformed to figure out if something as basic as what they hear in the news is fact or some demagogue's horseshit. Pretending liars simply have a differing political opinion and letting them sell their snake oil alongside doesn't defend truth, it actively makes the problem worse. 

The fact that "beliefs" and "facts" are so conflated in your mind that we can't even have manage to have the same conversation IS IN FACT, THE FUCKING PROBLEM.

EDIT: To wit, I get that your problem is, "How do we address the political divide in the US, shouldn't we try to bridge it?", let me ask you. Put on your empiricism glasses. NYT keeps this dude on. What's the liberal response? I think we've pretty much covered that one. Now, what's the conservative response?

If you're under the pretension that the response will be a decrease in number of accusations of fake news, and an uptick in conservatives basing their opinions on facts instead of what stories line up with their worldview, then I have a bridge to sell you.

I guess it comes down to this. You think that playing the big boy game, the take-the-higher-road game, the same game we've been playing for 30 years is the way out of this hyperpartisan hellhole we've found ourselves in. I don't agree that there IS a way out of this hyperpartisan hellhole, so frankly, I don't think letting liars in newspapers is going to do much at all that's practical except discredit those newspapers.

[SnowFire]

Well, I don't want to fillibuster forever, so I'll try and keep this brief.  Suffice to say, this is something I'm really passionate about.  When the Framers wrote the 1st amendment and talked about freedom of assembly and freedom of the press, "newspaper editorial page" is, to me, like ground zero of that.  It is among the most important places where people can bring up their opinion despite the fact that everyone else thinks it is stupid and wrong.  Very often it actually IS stupid and wrong.  But that's the place to do it.  When you say a person shouldn't be heard in the public square, you are attacking your own right to be there.

So yeah.  Re Alex's good post, I do want the opinion section to be a special space cordoned off for that like it was 1982 again.  Maybe it is dead, we'll see how things unfold in the next 4 years.  (Edit: And yeah, I remember seeing that article on the paradox of tolerance.  I'm actually fine with denying good speaking platforms for Nazis like Spencer!  I think he'd cross the line no matter where it gets drawn.)

The fact that "beliefs" and "facts" are so conflated in your mind that we can't even have manage to have the same conversation IS IN FACT, THE FUCKING PROBLEM.

I tried to crank up the volume before, but just in case it wasn't high up enough: I absolutely, 100%, do *not* conflate beliefs and facts.  There's a lot of issues where in fact one side is wrong, and the other side is right.  And hell, I'll jump on the train for attacking the Times and some of the other "mainstream media" for sometimes covering the 2016 election in entirely too horse racy a fashion, for all that the reasons behind that were understandable. 

What I disagree with everyone about is the proper way to fight the wrong belief.  If the NYT's sole goal is liberal advocacy - it's not, but let's say it was - it would be more effective at said liberal advocacy including a token conservative or two.  Even ignoring the high-falutin' "big boy, take the higher road" style which says all points of view should be reflected at least a little, the "low road" might well suggest doing this anyway.  So no, I'm not just saying "How do we address the political divide in the US, shouldn't we try to bridge it?"  I'm saying that if you are single-mindedly trying to advance a liberal agenda, you *still* actually want "neutral" sources.  Both the high road and the low road lead to the same conclusion.  (Well, if you're actually correct, at least.  If you're the Republicans, you might do things like preemptively talk shit about the Congressional Budget Office, a neutral source, because you know they're gonna bring up awkward facts about Ryancare and the like.  So I'd get it if *they* want to abolish neutral sources that call them on their bullshit.  It makes no sense for the side that should be more confident in being "right" to be wary of neutrality.)

[dunie]

I have no idea what you're talking about with shoddy arguments of discrimination.  It sounds like the NYT will be *losing* money from this, anyway, but they're doing it anyway because it's the right thing.  What exactly is the NYT's evil plan here?  Become the favorite paper for firebrand conservatives?  Why is it so hard to believe that they'd want a dissenting view, that this doesn't imply they've abandoned their politics?

A very short answer is needed here.

Shoddy arguments about discrimination:
Liberals think it is okay to post only liberal things until conservatives point out something along the lines of "reverse discrimination" as the opportunity to publish with X company. BOTH sides are remiss to assume that each perfectly portrays facts. That is just baloney. Do you understand now?

I hope the NYT's loses money, not because it is bringing in a conservative voice. It should have lost money from its liberal supporters way back with its blind presidential reporting. It should lose money because it is -clearly- failing to give platforms to voices that value the facts. I value the facts and I happen to be liberal-leaning. I also value conservative views that value the facts. SHOCK I do not care for or will invest in anything that chooses to peddle fiction as fact.

Can opinions contain facts? Yes, I am sure we would all agree. Can facts contain opinions? Yes, I am sure we would all agree. Here is the catch: just what impact facts AND misinformation can make is the issue-- either convincing people that returning to coal is a good thing to the detriment of so much environmentally.

If you disagree that the opinions section can be harmful by liberal, moderate, conservative viewpoints - and in particular now a certain kind of conservative that is resistant to nonreligious "facts" - that is probably a central issue in communication here. Are you just waiting for liberals to admit they are problematically resistant to certain views?

Anyway, if NYT's hired a convincing conservative religious type who could debate their points and science well (meaning being able navigate fact and fiction well) I think that would be a good thing.

Do you get my points now? If not dwell on it.

Where I disagreed was the idea of allowing more space for misinformation, and yes I admitted liberals can do the same. And? Thus I would demamd the NYT's rethink how it advertises itself as a fact-based toptier news source. The end.



edit edit edit after actually reading your responses to more than me:
I am just currently standing on the side of putting most of my energy into "independent" news sources, businesses. The NYT isn't a stage for me in this battle, since I have been strongly skeptical of them after cancelling my subscription in 2013. But the NYT has had and still has conservative writers. If our goal as consumers is to repel Trumpbabble and Trumpdiscrediting, I am not settled with battling the mainstream. I also don't get the point of criticizing where people want to put their money- yes you can ignore sections but your money still goes to it. Yes abolitionists could fight for antiracism but they still filled their tea glasses with sugar in a system propelled by unpaid labor and racism. For the record, Bret Stephens is a really convincing writer and that might frighten people some as well.

Thanks for the linkdrop super, I've been really interested in more stable platforms for conservatives but hadn't done the work of looking for such unfamiliar sources.

[SnowFire]

dunie: I don't really get the overall point of what you're saying.  (So...  for "do you understand now" and "dwell on that", the answer is basically no, but it's a sincere one, not a sarcastic one - I'm not trying to criticize.)  Not "disagree with" necessarily, I certainly agree that both liberals & conservatives can be wrong, misinformation is bad, etc., but don't get what it's leading to.  I don't think I'm waiting for liberals to admit anything?

I'm certainly not criticizing where people put their money.  People can buy or not buy for whatever reasons they like, certainly no moral obligation to purchase a subscription to a product you have qualms about!  However, backing up, the original point from Fenrir was:

When I thought "respectable american newspaper" my mind always defaulted to the NYT
Not anymore

i.e. that the NYT goes from respectable -> not respectable by hiring this jerk.  If you didn't like the NYT already due to their presidential coverage not being what you'd like, that's fine!  But...  that case isn't really what I was talking about.  I was talking about "The NYT is cool" -> "The NYT is no longer respectable" specifically because of hiring an opinion columnist with wrong/bad opinions, and focusing in on that idea specifically.

In the realm of "conservative religious type", the Times has Douthat, if you ever read his stuff at all.  He's a bit of a flake at times but he's okay as a read, and "respectable" in that he opposes Trump.

[SnowFire]

So, circling back to Fenrir...  thoughts on the French election?  According to well-known connisseur of international politics Donald Trump, the attack might be the Avril surprise LePen needs...  linked to a non-respectable newspaper for fun.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/21/world/europe/paris-champs-elysees-gunman.html

Also, snap British election coming up soon...  could be alarming.  It sounds like Labour is still in shambles, so this is pretty scary.  I rather doubt the Lib Dems have broad enough appeal to ever be a replacement opposition party, so if Labour collapses hard, it could end up with something stupid like the SNP being as big as Labour and a huge Tory majority largely of the pro-Brexit flavour of Tory...   ugh.

[dunie]

dunie: I don't really get the overall point of what you're saying.  (So...  for "do you understand now" and "dwell on that", the answer is basically no, but it's a sincere one, not a sarcastic one - I'm not trying to criticize.)  Not "disagree with" necessarily, I certainly agree that both liberals & conservatives can be wrong, misinformation is bad, etc., but don't get what it's leading to.  I don't think I'm waiting for liberals to admit anything?

I'm certainly not criticizing where people put their money.  People can buy or not buy for whatever reasons they like, certainly no moral obligation to purchase a subscription to a product you have qualms about!  However, backing up, the original point from Fenrir was:

When I thought "respectable american newspaper" my mind always defaulted to the NYT
Not anymore

i.e. that the NYT goes from respectable -> not respectable by hiring this jerk.  If you didn't like the NYT already due to their presidential coverage not being what you'd like, that's fine!  But...  that case isn't really what I was talking about.  I was talking about "The NYT is cool" -> "The NYT is no longer respectable" specifically because of hiring an opinion columnist with wrong/bad opinions, and focusing in on that idea specifically.

In the realm of "conservative religious type", the Times has Douthat, if you ever read his stuff at all.  He's a bit of a flake at times but he's okay as a read, and "respectable" in that he opposes Trump.

I think the main issue here is you thought my first post related to the NYT was an indirect rebuttal to you. Correct me if I'm wrong. No, actually I was talking about the general conversations that people who enter discussions have about the diversity of views through "reverse discrimination." I was not considering your response at all when I mentioned "shoddy arguments." My point in the first related post was "NYT was never cool, screw these sort of debates, I want facts from everybody." So even though I backed the wokeness of DLers before, color me unsurprised by the wrong flavor of jerk. After this explanation, I'll be honest and say that I don't know how to clarify even further because this is what I believe I posted about. I was never debating you but did agree generally with everyone that editorials have a firmer role in news reporting than they appear.

And so here is a further rant which isn't debating you: I wonder how much money the NYT's lost since then? It doesn't seem to be much if newsworthiness of that isn't happening, I suppose. But if NYT and other pubs are following the flow of Twitterphoria, hiring a conservative, contentious misuser-of-information editorialist seems like clickbait more than scaffolding diverse and open conversations. It'd be that liberals either completely remove their financial support or that they beeline to his editorials to scapegoat retweet & re-share examples their view of what is wrong with everything.

You know, I'm writing this after reading about Flint, Michigan (pipeline laying), Nestle plastic-bottle pumping, Trenton, New Jersey (high levels of lead; I grew up here for four years) and the shithole recessive "third world" situations in our own country. Written and spoken rhetoric that undermines caring environmentally, therefore socially, and instead places the ordeal of healthy living and caring for ecosystems on people crippled by economy and big business should never recieve one dime. Yet it does. People die as we wax poetically about upholding diverse views. It hurts. I think it was said in some way, shape or form here, but the equivalent of "quit telling folk to empathize, sympathize or try to understand with the oppressor" is what cuts for me in this entire conversation --- in what became a much longer ranty-post than I expected, what I only want to understand from the powerful misinformers across the board are their tactics, so as to deconstruct or resist.

[superaielman]

And so here is a further rant which isn't debating you: I wonder how much money the NYT's lost since then

They've claimed they've broken subscription records since Trump got put in office. He's been good for business for papers.

[Captain K]

le pen will most definitely win the first round, only the second counts. And people who didn't vote for her on the first are not likely to vote for her on the second.

And Le Pen always gets really good scores on the first round (she'll be first this time) but hits a glass ceiling on the second round.

Le Pen and Macron are in a runoff now after the end of the second round.  Macron is leading but not by much.

[Pyro]

Macron has like a 38 point lead in the polls head-to-head with Le Pen... This isn't comparable to Hillary v Trump.

[Fenrir]

I'm usually pessimistic about politics (I expected Trump to win, and Fillon to go against Le Pen) but things look hopeful here.
Le pen only got 21,6% on the first round. Where is she going to get the last 28,5% needed to win, as a far right candidate running against a centrist?