Am I wrong? Yesterday I canceled my New York Times subscription due to the hiring of

[jrthin]

10. The issue I have with

this assessment is that you are saying it's okay to legitimize this kind of thinking. We assume that freedom of speech means giving a forum for that speech. The NYT considers itself a legitimate paper, therefore having Bret Stephens there delegitimizes the paper and in my mind puts the whole paper in question. For example, we sit confidently to read a literary work, then we start to notice grammar errors, or poorly written sentences, at that moment no matter how esteemed the literary work, it becomes diminished.


And for me, who has subscribed to the NYT's since the early eighties, I do not in aggregate find the NYT journalistic standards high. I followed the reporting of Hillary's email server and just sighed. This is a paper that found it difficult to say that a man (45) is lying, despite all objective facts that is what he was doing. This is a paper who in its editorial pages derided Martin Luther King as a rabble rouser and in essence should not be listen to. I believe the hype that the NYT is quality journalism is more hype than reality. Are their good writers there, Charles Blow and Krugman, to name a couple, yes. Are they worth my supporting a paper that each day helps to make progress of a civilized society better for the forgotten, no.

Last year I cancelled my weekly subscription and am about to cancel my weekend subscription. NYT is aiding in the normalization an indecent society and an indecent mindset.