General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOutrageous projection - NYT "Groupthink Has Left the Left Blind" (Bret Stephens)
This is utter bullshit - publishing it so you can see how the other side thinks of us. Mostly, it tells us how THEY think
A constricted view of the world leaves progressives surprised by the world as it is.
Bret Stephens
By Bret Stephens
Opinion Columnist
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/16/opinion/liberal-media-censoring.html
This year, several high-profile writers have left left-leaning publications after running afoul of what they describe as a pervasive culture of censoriousness, groupthink and intellectual-risk aversion. This month, Donald Trump once again stunned much of the liberal establishment by dramatically beating polling expectations to come within about 80,000 votes of another Electoral College victory.
Its worth asking whether theres a connection between the two that is, between the lefts increasingly constricted view of the world and the increasing frequency with which leftists are surprised by the world as it is.
What, today, is leftism, at least when it comes to intellectual life? Not what it used to be. Once it was predominantly liberal, albeit with radical fringes. Now it is predominantly progressive, or woke, with centrist liberals in dissent. Once it was irreverent. Now it is pious. Once it believed that truth was best discovered by engaging opposing points of view. Now it believes that truth can be established by eliminating them. Once it cared about process. Now it is obsessed with outcomes. Once it understood, with Walt Whitman, that we contain multitudes. Now it is into dualities: We are privileged or powerless, white or of color, racist or anti-racist, oppressor or oppressed.
The list goes on. But the central difference is this: The old liberal left paid attention to complexity, ambiguity, the gray areas. A sense of complexity induced a measure of doubt, including self-doubt. The new left typically seeks to reduce things to elements such as race, class and gender, in ways that erase ambiguity and doubt. The new left is a factory of certitudes.
Its from that factory that writers like Andrew Sullivan and Glenn Greenwald have fled, and from which many other independent-minded thinkers will, sooner or later, follow. For them, the loss isnt devastating: They have large followings and can use new digital platforms like Substack to make a generous living.
snip
paywall warning. I already sent him a comment (not published yet) - any with NYT subscripts should cram the comments section!
unblock
(52,181 posts)Along with all his minions who insist they wuz robbed.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,013 posts)obamanut2012
(26,064 posts)Thanks for the info.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,013 posts)obamanut2012
(26,064 posts)I had the NYT and The Atlantic, and will now sub to the Washington Post instead of the NYT. I have had it with them, between all of this and the Tom Cotton OP/ED.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,013 posts)Tells us all they are more concerned with money/subscriptions, keeping both sides engaged, instead of truth of what's going on
stopbush
(24,395 posts)That, we accomplished. That in and of itself is amazing when you realize that 75-million of our fellow Americans enthusiastically cast their ballots for the guy who called our honored war dead suckers and losers.
radius777
(3,635 posts)We took out an incumbent president who was/is a clear and present danger to democracy. As the returns came in I was fearing this could be like 2004, when it was 'obvious' how terrible BushCo was but he still won. But somehow luck was on our side this time and we pulled it off.
JI7
(89,244 posts)Didn't read the article after seeing that name. Have already read and heard enough from him and it's the usual shit .
genxlib
(5,524 posts)He tries to pretend he is above the fray of the typical frothing masses by using terms like "classical liberalism" etc. But he can't see that he is engulfed in the same kind of groupthink that he rails against.
Funny that he uses Andrews Sullivan as an example of a "liberal" writer who fled a liberal publication. Sullivan is a forever conservative and was only temporarily anti-trump. But these days, that is all that it takes to fall into the crosshairs of the right.
Paladin
(28,246 posts)His presence on the NYT opinion section is an absolute travesty, (a) because he's a drooling right-winger, and (b) because he can't write worth a shit.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,013 posts)Cameliano
(54 posts)I'm new here, so I want someone to clarify whether right wing sources are allowed here, as in the case of this thread.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,013 posts)But right wing sources are not allowed.
Welcome to DU!
Cameliano
(54 posts)You claimed that the source is "The New York Times", but the source is actually Bret Stephens.
New York Times Is the medium used by the right wing author to convey his op-ed.
It's like saying that Rudy Giuliani stops being a right wing source as long as he writes something published by the New York Times.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,013 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Politically, it's corrupt, as is the AP for another biggie.
Obvious when you just think about it. After all, we didn't really believe the NYT's constantly negative coverage of Hillary and her supposed massive corruption in 2015-16? But for others, their headlines almost all smeared, with the Times's august ass supposedly covered by putting truth inside thatwas excluded in, and even contradicted by, the headlines. Of course the headlines poisoned all, most not reading beyond them and those who did only getting to the truth after the headline.
I sometimes opened the political section and count the negative headlines about Hillary and/or Democrats down the left margin. Typically at least a half dozen a day. The difference between the NYT and Fox and the WSJ was style, not the goals of their deceit and corruption.
Probably the single most famous, btw, may be the Times' October 31, 2016 (a week before the election) major article summing up the FBI's Trump-Russia investigation. They strongly implied that nothing was found and it was about to close. They buried the lede (truth) in the 10th paragraph with a short sentence that investigation continued. In fact, but nowhere stated, the FBI was expanding its investigation as more and more was being turned up by the 100s of agents already on it.
The execs behind all this are still there.
Cameliano
(54 posts)It's strategy seems to be to speak about anything but the man who wrote this piece.
Newspapers are not alive. Newspapers hire people who write. And you are ignoring the ideology of the writer.
You simply keeps telling his right wing article appeared in the New York Times.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,013 posts)we are not a closed off echo chamber like the right wing. We bring information here to stimulate discussion. We need to understand what the right is telling their base so we can understand what we need to do.
Maybe DU is not the place for you....
marble falls
(57,063 posts)... site moderation".
Cameliano
(54 posts)Who are you?
Anyway, I never said I didn't like the rules. I took issue with a member pretending that a right wing author is represents. New York Times as a whole.
I work for Verizon. That's doesn't mean I'm ShopRite.
marble falls
(57,063 posts)NRaleighLiberal
(60,013 posts)You are clearly very dense, or just itching for a fight.
Cameliano
(54 posts)I told you to stop pretending the author doesn't exist.
You keep trying to elevate his status by equating him to the New York Times newspaper as a whole.
And you will say nothing about this right winger in your next post, again.
marble falls
(57,063 posts)Cameliano
(54 posts)You're on shaky ground here. What is he, a moderate?
Let's discuss why you think he has been incorrectly described as a conservative.
marble falls
(57,063 posts)Yonnie3
(17,427 posts)NY Times is not considered a right wing source.
This opinion piece is right wing. The TOS at https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice allows posts like this.
Specifically it says:
Don't peddle right-wing talking points, smears, or sources
Do not post right-wing talking points or smears. Do not post content sourced from right-wing publications, authors, or pundits. Exceptions are permitted if you provide a clear reason for doing so that is consistent with the values of this website.
I think the poster clearly states why they are posting this.
radius777
(3,635 posts)otherwise we will always be blindsided by their attacks.
The OP is well within the terms of service, as it cites a credible source and makes clear that the objective is to refute this insidious RW narrative.
Salviati
(6,008 posts)Stuff from mainstream news is generally fine, even if it is from a conservative idiot author. Even fox news is usually ok, particularly for straight news items, but if you're posting op-eds from fox news, you shouldn't be surprised to get a few alerts.
Maeve
(42,279 posts)Do not post right-wing talking points or smears. Do not post content sourced from right-wing publications, authors, or pundits. Exceptions are permitted if you provide a clear reason for doing so that is consistent with the values of this website.
Why we have this rule: News media and the Internet are already awash with conservative propagandists attacking our candidates and our values -- we're not interested in providing them with another outlet. We understand that many of our members might hold some conservative viewpoints on isolated issues, but nobody here should be parroting hateful garbage from the RNC, the NRA, or the Family Research Council. Forum members should expect that the only time they'll have to read a right-wing smear or an article from Breitbart is when someone is pointing and laughing at it.
Is the author being ridiculed? Quote from the OP:
So, yes, the author is being ridiculed and the OP is within the TOS
Understand now?
Turin_C3PO
(13,952 posts)I prefer the Washington Post.
Roisin Ni Fiachra
(2,574 posts)American Fascist Party (Republican), and fuck your vague sophomoric New Age RW pseudo intellectual Orwellian fascist bullshit.
Certitude is not a bad thing. Certitude won the Presidential election for us. There was no gray area.
Democracy Good. Fascism Bad.
End of story.
SlogginThroughIt
(1,977 posts)We are all group thinkers?
crickets
(25,959 posts)handmade34
(22,756 posts)RobinA
(9,888 posts)totally agrees with the writer. I'm 62. Liberalism is not what it was when I got started. It was the opposite of correct speech, which is even part of the rules here at DU. Disagree with the groupthink and you get hammered. Cancelling people? NOT a liberal value.
Turin_C3PO
(13,952 posts)fascists, racists and other bigots is a liberal value. Oh yes indeed it is. I make no bones about the fact that if every one of those people dissapeared tomorrow I wouldn't shed one tear. BTW the author of the article is a known right winger. Just thought you should know who you're defending here on a progressive website.
marble falls
(57,063 posts)peggysue2
(10,828 posts)There's no gray area when it comes to fascism. There's no ambiguity when it comes to blatant racism, sexism and xenophobia. Democrats are suppose to have a rational conversation with Nazis or Nazi/fascist apologists?
Are we to excuse the excesses of Trump, Bill Barr or their Republican enablers? Are we to pretend that the cruel, vindictive, unAmerican moves of Trump and his henchmen never happened, that a rollback to the good ole days of bigoted, sexist white men is what we want for the future?
Stephens is excusing the inexcusable, trying to dilute the treachery of the last four years by pretending that the real problem is left-leaning extremism and/or the certitude of calling out the right's white nationalists, the hate and irrationality on display day-after-day-after-day.
This is bothsiderism writ large and it's shameless in its wrong-headedness. Democrats are not perfect but calling out hate for what it is should never be labeled a weakness, an excuse to shrug our shoulders. There's no nuance when it comes to Trump and Trumpism. The only engagement with hate is to push back until it slithers into the shadows, back under the rocks where it belongs.
This is a weak, shallow argument coming from Stephens. No wonder he calls up Sullivan and Greenwald. Birds of a feather.
JHB
(37,158 posts)Both the people he names left because they weren't "free" to spout whatever lies and nonsense in somebody else's publication, and they felt entitled to do so, so they stormed off in respective huffs.
Of course, it's a lot easier to do that when you have money and connections and connections to money, so you never have to wonder whether you'll have another gig that will let you pay the bills, the way most writers have to deal with that little fact of life.