Current Events > How liberal institutions are undermined by their own liberalism

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/new-york-times-opinion-james-bennet_us_5a8db27de4b0273053a70f47

In December, New York Times editorial page editor James Bennet met with a group of Times employees to answer questions about his much-questioned opinion section. At the time, A.G. Sulzberger, now publisher of the Times, was conducting a tour of the newsroom he was about to inherit, meeting with employees from different corners of the newspaper. The Q&A session with Bennet was apparently convened in a similar spirit of transparency and goodwill. But according to some Times staffers who were present, little clarity was offered by Bennet and even less goodwill was spread. One person who was there, still angry more than two months later, called Bennets answers equivocal bullshit.

In the meeting, a recording of which was recently viewed and transcribed by HuffPost, Bennet talked extensively about some of the choices hed made since his hiring in 2016, the problems hed encountered, the criticism hed received both internally and externally, and his successes and failures.

It was as frank an explication as Bennet has given of how he conceives of the opinion section. Slaloming between contradictions, Bennet laid out an ideology of no ideology. The editorial page is beholden to no priors (except when it is). It proudly forswears the idea of right answers (except when it doesnt). It is humanist and ecumenical but also of the belief, for instance, that some kinds of ethnic cleansing are worthy of debate.

The world needs this from us right now, Bennet told the dozen or so New York Times staffers in the room. I dont mean to sound pious, but it really is true that this is a crude and dangerously polarized time... And to simply assert that we know what the right answers are is not good for the democracy.

Some answers, though, are evidently so right in Bennets view that they can simply be asserted. I mean, I think we are pro-capitalism, he said later in the meeting. The New York Times is in favor of capitalism because it has been the greatest engine of, its been the greatest anti-poverty program and engine of progress that weve seen.

Bennets ideology of no ideology admits to a few other caveats. In the meeting, he talked about how some issues are settled law and thus beyond debate, citing the evils of Nazism and the science of climate change. He also talked about which views are too poisonous to be given an airing in his pages, such as Richard Spencers white nationalism. But even then, perhaps uneasy with the idea of a value-neutral editorial page having any values at all, Bennet wobbled:

We talk a lot about the Richard Spencer test, you know: Would we publish Richard Spencer in the pages of The New York Times? The answer to that is no... But the reasons we wouldnt right now are largely because the guy is he represents a particularly poisonous point of view. And that isnt having those kinds of consequences. You know, its not a, its not a giant movement.

Is it the poisonous point of view that disqualifies Spencer, or is it the supposedly narrow scope of his white nationalism and its lack of consequences? If Spencers ethnic cleansing program scored favorably in the next Gallup poll, would he then be worthy of op-ed space in The New York Times?
...
The opinion section in general is a case study in how essentially liberal institutions are undermined by the tools of their own liberalism. Illiberalism seeps into the hollows created by seemingly high-minded values about debate and the marketplace of ideas. The settled science about climate gets quickly unsettled by a columnist like Bret Stephens, a Bennet hire, who smuggles climate denialism onto the page by couching it in progressive-sounding language about debate, certainty and ecumenicism.

The piece is longer than I can paste here; read it all
---

bump
---

libs in big trouble!

@reis
@Turbam
@SomeonesAlt
@byron
---

Kaname_Madoka posted...

libs in big trouble!

@reis
@Turbam
@SomeonesAlt
@byron

Ayyyy lmao! Take that libs!
---

I'm not really sure what my big take away is supposed to be after reading that tbh
---

left been eating itself for a few years now
---

Balrog0 posted...

I'm not really sure what my big take away is supposed to be after reading that tbh

If I had to sum things up:

NYT staffers are chafing against editorial leadership, which is claiming "ideological openness" as justification for giving a platform for "provocative" conservatives to print bullshit. Editor James Bennet's explanations are often ad-hoc and don't mesh with his actions.
---

Yeah but as long as theycsn still get to the kids while theyre young, theyll be alright
---

Libs sweatin!
---

I dont know about all that but corporate vs progressive Democrats is an issue.
---

This James Bennet guy seems to follow the idea that being liberal means you have to accept everybody's viewpoints and experiences no matter what.

This is A) a general principle that everyone should follow, not just liberals, and B) bullshit, because some viewpoints are actually bad and don't advance us as a species.

Antifar posted...

If I had to sum things up:

NYT staffers are chafing against editorial leadership, which is claiming "ideological openness" as justification for giving a platform for "provocative" conservatives to print bullshit. Editor James Bennet's explanations are often ad-hoc and don't mesh with his actions.

I see that. Im not sure if I should be upset about this because it is a bad principle to hold in the first place or because he isn't following it with fidelity, though.
---

Note that Antifar is okay with ideological openness when it gives far left extremism like communism a platform.
---

ThanksUglyGod posted...

This James Bennet guy seems to follow the idea that being liberal means you have to accept everybody's viewpoints and experiences no matter what.

Even he doesn't go that far, though. As pointed out, there are no Trump supporters on the op-ed page, no Sanders supporters even. His commitment to ideological diversity only goes so far as to allow Clinton supporters and Marco Rubio supporters.
---

I'm still waiting for liberals to ban California because its shaped like a high capacity magazine on a map.

Im_JustMe0129 posted...

I'm still waiting for liberals to ban California because its shaped like a high capacity magazine on a map.

You would think conservatives would love California then.
---

Uh the TC is a lib.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Note that Antifar is okay with ideological openness when it gives far left extremism like communism a platform.

Yeah, this is true. If you're going to ban Spencer's rhetoric and climate change denials, you better also be banning Marxism and Communist rhetoric. Either be consistent in not allowing toxic/failed ideologies, or allow all them all to be discussed.
---

E32005 posted...

left been eating itself for a few years now

this has nothing to do with the article
---

The Admiral posted...

Yeah, this is true. If you're going to ban Spencer's rhetoric and climate change denials, you better also be banning Marxism and Communist rhetoric. Either be consistent in not allowing toxic/failed ideologies, or allow all them all to be discussed.

they do ban both of those things

I believe that it antifar's problem
---

creativerealms posted...

Uh the TC is a lib.

I am not
---

My problem is less what he deems off limits (the the way he leaves open the possibility of publishing a Richard Spencer type if only they were more popular is noteworthy) than what he deems worthy of inclusion.
---

Antifar posted...

creativerealms posted...

Uh the TC is a lib.

I am not

Then I think you are using the wrong account as antifar is one of the more logical and clear minded liberals here and you forgot to switch to Mal-Fet.
---

creativerealms posted...

Then I think you are using the wrong account as antifar is one of the more logical and clear minded liberals here and you forgot to switch to Mal-Fet.

I am a socialist, which not the same as a liberal.
---