What went wrong at the New York Times?
March 1, 2023 1:44 PM Subscribe
People who are outraged generate traffic, and people who hate cancel culture generate traffic. Capitalism is calling the shots. Can’t go the other way; if it were reversed, you might get someone shooting up the office. It’s easier to flat-out lie.
posted by supercres at 3:14 PM on March 1, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by supercres at 3:14 PM on March 1, 2023 [1 favorite]
Really appreciated this read. Thanks, DarlingBri!
Back in the mid-aughts, I remember a network-visualizing website called Muckety.com - it seems to be defunct, which is a real shame. Politicians, reporters, businesspeople - who worked where, who sits on which boards. Making these kinds of connections explicit can be such an eye-opener.
posted by rrrrrrrrrt at 3:19 PM on March 1, 2023 [24 favorites]
Back in the mid-aughts, I remember a network-visualizing website called Muckety.com - it seems to be defunct, which is a real shame. Politicians, reporters, businesspeople - who worked where, who sits on which boards. Making these kinds of connections explicit can be such an eye-opener.
posted by rrrrrrrrrt at 3:19 PM on March 1, 2023 [24 favorites]
People who are outraged generate traffic, and people who hate cancel culture generate traffic. Capitalism is calling the shots.
I think the article makes a good case that this is not just anonymous forces like capitalism shaping the coverage. It's specific powerful people making specific decisions.
posted by clawsoon at 3:33 PM on March 1, 2023 [100 favorites]
I think the article makes a good case that this is not just anonymous forces like capitalism shaping the coverage. It's specific powerful people making specific decisions.
posted by clawsoon at 3:33 PM on March 1, 2023 [100 favorites]
...and I'll add to that: At this point, they have no idea whether this will increase or decrease the paper's profits. They may never find out, since this is one decision among many that might affect the bottom line. This is an ideological decision, not a business decision.
posted by clawsoon at 3:42 PM on March 1, 2023 [65 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 3:42 PM on March 1, 2023 [65 favorites]
It didn’t get that bad. It was that bad, and the world changed under it. FFS, y’all want to remake the world. Give the world a moment to catch up.
posted by Galvanic at 4:04 PM on March 1, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by Galvanic at 4:04 PM on March 1, 2023 [1 favorite]
No, it's genuinely worse, not status quo bad. The moral panic propaganda campaign they are currently waging started fairly recently.
posted by kyrademon at 4:13 PM on March 1, 2023 [66 favorites]
posted by kyrademon at 4:13 PM on March 1, 2023 [66 favorites]
Vanity Fair also took a closer look at the NYT's problems on Monday, though they took more of a climate approach than to try to identify the person(s) responsible.
posted by scottcal at 4:13 PM on March 1, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by scottcal at 4:13 PM on March 1, 2023 [3 favorites]
It did get this bad. There wasn't always a targeted campaign dedicating this much ink to tearing down trans people in the past.
posted by Dysk at 4:14 PM on March 1, 2023 [47 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 4:14 PM on March 1, 2023 [47 favorites]
Give the world a moment to catch up.
And how many people get to suffer while it does?
The moral panic propaganda campaign they are currently waging started fairly recently.
It seems to have begun right around the time attacking abortion blew up in the faces of the right wing.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:16 PM on March 1, 2023 [59 favorites]
And how many people get to suffer while it does?
The moral panic propaganda campaign they are currently waging started fairly recently.
It seems to have begun right around the time attacking abortion blew up in the faces of the right wing.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:16 PM on March 1, 2023 [59 favorites]
We letting them off the hook for selling the war? They've never been your friend, friend.
posted by StarkRoads at 4:17 PM on March 1, 2023 [42 favorites]
posted by StarkRoads at 4:17 PM on March 1, 2023 [42 favorites]
Laverne Cox was on the cover of TIME magazine in 2014. World’s had plenty of time to catch up to [checks notes] transgender people existing.
posted by brook horse at 4:30 PM on March 1, 2023 [48 favorites]
posted by brook horse at 4:30 PM on March 1, 2023 [48 favorites]
It seems to have begun right around the time attacking abortion blew up in the faces of the right wing.
In the NYT anyway. The wider genre of this type of coverage goes back at least as far as that 2018 Atlantic cover article (link to Slate's contemporaneous criticism of it).
posted by BungaDunga at 4:36 PM on March 1, 2023 [2 favorites]
In the NYT anyway. The wider genre of this type of coverage goes back at least as far as that 2018 Atlantic cover article (link to Slate's contemporaneous criticism of it).
posted by BungaDunga at 4:36 PM on March 1, 2023 [2 favorites]
Give the world a moment to catch up.
The NYT's stance seems to be that kids should just stop transitioning until the NYT top brass are comfortable with the idea.
posted by BungaDunga at 4:38 PM on March 1, 2023 [47 favorites]
The NYT's stance seems to be that kids should just stop transitioning until the NYT top brass are comfortable with the idea.
posted by BungaDunga at 4:38 PM on March 1, 2023 [47 favorites]
Calling out the paper's recent sharp increase in trans-hostility is not "letting them off the hook for selling the war".
Can the people coming in to drop low-effort gotchas about the article's headline for trans people in the thread to waste their time with form an orderly queue?
posted by polytope subirb enby-of-piano-dice at 4:39 PM on March 1, 2023 [55 favorites]
Can the people coming in to drop low-effort gotchas about the article's headline for trans people in the thread to waste their time with form an orderly queue?
posted by polytope subirb enby-of-piano-dice at 4:39 PM on March 1, 2023 [55 favorites]
The NYT has not been essential for a couple of decades; maybe it could be put on an ice floe to drift off into the climate change affected oceans?
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:44 PM on March 1, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:44 PM on March 1, 2023 [4 favorites]
“[Kahn] is somebody who has expressed little patience for the newsroom culture-war eruptions that have been such a distraction for us lately.”
It's quite something to quite intentionally fuel the fire of a culture war and then call the protests "a distraction." I mean, fighting transphobia is a distraction to trans people, who would rather be living their lives without the fear of rhetorical and legislative and physical violence, but YOU DO YOU, NYT. Aww, poor widdle paper of record can't report the news because some pediatrician somewhere has a biiig baaaag of hormones he's forcing into YOUR child's throat!
posted by mirepoix at 4:45 PM on March 1, 2023 [28 favorites]
It's quite something to quite intentionally fuel the fire of a culture war and then call the protests "a distraction." I mean, fighting transphobia is a distraction to trans people, who would rather be living their lives without the fear of rhetorical and legislative and physical violence, but YOU DO YOU, NYT. Aww, poor widdle paper of record can't report the news because some pediatrician somewhere has a biiig baaaag of hormones he's forcing into YOUR child's throat!
posted by mirepoix at 4:45 PM on March 1, 2023 [28 favorites]
It is *so* much worse now, Galvanic. Oklahoma is poised to ban insurance coverage for all transgender medical care for children *and* adults.That is just one example out of many that have been regularly in the news for months now.
To deny that the current legislative environment for transgender citizens in the U.S. is worse today than in years past is to deny reality.
posted by mediareport at 5:09 PM on March 1, 2023 [46 favorites]
To deny that the current legislative environment for transgender citizens in the U.S. is worse today than in years past is to deny reality.
posted by mediareport at 5:09 PM on March 1, 2023 [46 favorites]
Mod note: One comment deleted. Galvanic, take a break from this thread. Arguing about whether things are even that bad for Trans people today is insensitive, and downplaying the state of Queer/Trans issues today is very invalidating. This is not what the thread was intended for.
posted by travelingthyme (staff) at 5:20 PM on March 1, 2023 [52 favorites]
posted by travelingthyme (staff) at 5:20 PM on March 1, 2023 [52 favorites]
I think the people behind this at NYT are aware that trans people are not harming anybody and just want to live their own lives.
But they have concluded that trans-ness is frightening enough to the general electorate to make them stop being so horrified as they watch climate change rip the very basis of human existence to shreds all over the world, starting with the global food supply, that the far right can get back into power with the next election.
And if they’re right, it may truly be last real election we see for a long time.
I think this degree of cynical duplicity can only be coming from the Sulzberger level at the NYT.
posted by jamjam at 6:09 PM on March 1, 2023 [6 favorites]
But they have concluded that trans-ness is frightening enough to the general electorate to make them stop being so horrified as they watch climate change rip the very basis of human existence to shreds all over the world, starting with the global food supply, that the far right can get back into power with the next election.
And if they’re right, it may truly be last real election we see for a long time.
I think this degree of cynical duplicity can only be coming from the Sulzberger level at the NYT.
posted by jamjam at 6:09 PM on March 1, 2023 [6 favorites]
Give the world a moment to catch up.
No.
What's holding the world back on this issue is a toxic cocktail of ginned-up culture-war horseshit that exists solely to keep the populace polarized enough to shut down anything resembling effective, organized opposition to the activities of a handful of deluded over-entitled wealth-addled fucks who act like they have a God-given right to treat the rest of us as livestock.
Trans folk are no threat to you. The penises of Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Gautam Adani are the ones I want stopped from being swung about in my bathrooms.
posted by flabdablet at 6:34 PM on March 1, 2023 [88 favorites]
No.
What's holding the world back on this issue is a toxic cocktail of ginned-up culture-war horseshit that exists solely to keep the populace polarized enough to shut down anything resembling effective, organized opposition to the activities of a handful of deluded over-entitled wealth-addled fucks who act like they have a God-given right to treat the rest of us as livestock.
Trans folk are no threat to you. The penises of Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos and Gautam Adani are the ones I want stopped from being swung about in my bathrooms.
posted by flabdablet at 6:34 PM on March 1, 2023 [88 favorites]
From that Vanity Fair piece, I read that the NYT spokesperson said, “It is not acceptable to publicly align with an advocacy group or publicly criticize colleagues’ work.” I get the former, but I had no idea the latter was part of journalistic ethics. Is that a Thing? Is all the journalistic sniping I hear takes place on Twitter only ever between outlets, rather than within them, and as a workplace rule?
posted by rrrrrrrrrt at 6:37 PM on March 1, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by rrrrrrrrrt at 6:37 PM on March 1, 2023 [3 favorites]
It is not acceptable to publicly align with an advocacy group
That's funny, coming from a representative of the world's most longstanding advocate for the status quo.
posted by flabdablet at 6:45 PM on March 1, 2023 [18 favorites]
That's funny, coming from a representative of the world's most longstanding advocate for the status quo.
posted by flabdablet at 6:45 PM on March 1, 2023 [18 favorites]
Laverne Cox was on the cover of TIME magazine in 2014. World’s had plenty of time to catch up to [checks notes] transgender people existing.
Also from 2014, the NYT interview:
Laverne Cox: ‘Blending In Was Never an Option’ (2014).
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 7:09 PM on March 1, 2023
Also from 2014, the NYT interview:
Laverne Cox: ‘Blending In Was Never an Option’ (2014).
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 7:09 PM on March 1, 2023
It's actually kind of interesting that people are pushing back and saying "nope, this is not okay." I'm certainly biased (since the correct side of the "issue" seems so obvious) but it feels like it might stick. There has been a shift in the culture where we just don't shrug things off like we used to.
posted by anhedonic at 7:14 PM on March 1, 2023 [11 favorites]
posted by anhedonic at 7:14 PM on March 1, 2023 [11 favorites]
What went wrong? Bigots waved their bigotry around for fun and profit. People got hurt and will get hurt more, but they don't care about that
posted by Jacen at 7:29 PM on March 1, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by Jacen at 7:29 PM on March 1, 2023 [2 favorites]
I think the article makes a good case that this is not just anonymous forces like capitalism shaping the coverage. It's specific powerful people making specific decisions.
The invisible hand is a lie.
posted by rhizome at 9:29 PM on March 1, 2023 [4 favorites]
The invisible hand is a lie.
posted by rhizome at 9:29 PM on March 1, 2023 [4 favorites]
Au contraire: there is an invisible hand, and the advertising industry keeps dipping it into all our pockets.
posted by flabdablet at 9:47 PM on March 1, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by flabdablet at 9:47 PM on March 1, 2023 [1 favorite]
I really loathe the "well, that's just capitalism" take because so often it's simply a get-out-of-caring-free card.
It's the fucking neoliberal version of "it's god's will"
posted by allium cepa at 10:15 PM on March 1, 2023 [36 favorites]
It's the fucking neoliberal version of "it's god's will"
posted by allium cepa at 10:15 PM on March 1, 2023 [36 favorites]
Inshdollah.
posted by flabdablet at 10:28 PM on March 1, 2023 [30 favorites]
posted by flabdablet at 10:28 PM on March 1, 2023 [30 favorites]
a get-out-of-caring-free card
Exactly! It's not an all-wise global return-on-capital optimizer (as inhuman a fuckery machine as that is), it's a bunch of assholes in suits using capitalist ideology to squelch any milk of rodent kindness they may once have had.
posted by away for regrooving at 10:41 PM on March 1, 2023 [4 favorites]
Exactly! It's not an all-wise global return-on-capital optimizer (as inhuman a fuckery machine as that is), it's a bunch of assholes in suits using capitalist ideology to squelch any milk of rodent kindness they may once have had.
posted by away for regrooving at 10:41 PM on March 1, 2023 [4 favorites]
Ironically it was the NYT that published this opinion piece linking the anti-trans stance of The Guardian to far-right influence groups in the US in February 2019:
https://web.archive.org/web/20200722121117/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/opinion/terf-trans-women-britain.html
posted by subdee at 11:02 PM on March 1, 2023 [7 favorites]
https://web.archive.org/web/20200722121117/https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/opinion/terf-trans-women-britain.html
posted by subdee at 11:02 PM on March 1, 2023 [7 favorites]
It's so obvious that trans people are the current scapegoats in the culture war because it's no longer acceptable to cast cis gay people in that role (for now).
posted by subdee at 11:08 PM on March 1, 2023 [36 favorites]
posted by subdee at 11:08 PM on March 1, 2023 [36 favorites]
I guess when you see a big part of your value as defined by who you help legitimize hate towards, you get the NYT.
posted by allium cepa at 11:34 PM on March 1, 2023
posted by allium cepa at 11:34 PM on March 1, 2023
It's so obvious that trans people are the current scapegoats in the culture war because it's no longer acceptable to cast cis gay people in that role (for now).
Not just that, but the war against abortion (which, remember, was selected because the Religious Right could no longer openly use racism as a rallying flag) wound up blowing up in their face as it turned out that people actually thought bodily autonomy for women was an important right. Thus the hard pivot - because they've lost their old targets.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:39 PM on March 1, 2023 [36 favorites]
Not just that, but the war against abortion (which, remember, was selected because the Religious Right could no longer openly use racism as a rallying flag) wound up blowing up in their face as it turned out that people actually thought bodily autonomy for women was an important right. Thus the hard pivot - because they've lost their old targets.
posted by NoxAeternum at 11:39 PM on March 1, 2023 [36 favorites]
Michael Hobbes and Peter Shamshiri just did their If Books Could Kill podcast on The New York Times’ War on Trans Kids this week. Hobbes analyses the coverage and the available statistics in an hour long episode.
posted by honey-barbara at 12:44 AM on March 2, 2023 [18 favorites]
posted by honey-barbara at 12:44 AM on March 2, 2023 [18 favorites]
This is a fascinating deep dive. I was aware of this as part of the background of dissatisfaction that led me to finally cancel my NYT subscription at the beginning of the year, but I take the point from the article that I'd probably dismissed a lot of the specifics because I didn't know the specifics. "Decisions that come down from above may, thus, come through several layers of plausible deniability. There is no possibility of blame, only reasonable conclusions drawn through proximity," as TFA puts it, and I'd accepted that there was little more that I could do to get beyond that intentional veil as a viewer with limited time on my hands. So, goodness, well done Jude Ellison S. Doyle for putting this all together in one place.
As an aside, the “exercise in staring taken as fact” is a blunt tool the NYT (and others) use for all manner of reportage on smaller interest groups that they seem to think the masses want to point and laugh at. They do this for any story about animal rights and the humans working in that field or interested in its philosophy. This extends hilariously to NYT cooking, which cannot mention a vegan recipe without starting the recipe with some version of "remember when you could just eat steak and foie gras at every meal without being harangued by an activist about animals or the environment or whatever, anyway here's this thing that's "vegan" I guess ugh." They even started a vegetarian recipe newsletter to cash in on the changing relationship people have with food, and even in that thing the tone is resentful* longing for an imagined Manhattanite audience of decades past.
In the end I cancelled because I drew the same conclusion that Doyle comes to here. I didn't just age out of comfort with NYT's standards, I outgrew them. I got smarter, my training accumulated, my life experience compounded those things and, boom. I realized I was hanging onto the NYT but not taking them seriously—and tradition is not a reason to pay for that kind of information.
FWIW I've done the same with the Guardian, where my subscription ends in May and I won't renew it.
Apologies for the language but my ex used to say that their recipes always have an implied very specific gendered slur at the end of the title, which really fits in with the conclusions from this article. As in, "vegan cacio e pepe, you pu**ies.")
posted by late afternoon dreaming hotel at 3:35 AM on March 2, 2023 [18 favorites]
As an aside, the “exercise in staring taken as fact” is a blunt tool the NYT (and others) use for all manner of reportage on smaller interest groups that they seem to think the masses want to point and laugh at. They do this for any story about animal rights and the humans working in that field or interested in its philosophy. This extends hilariously to NYT cooking, which cannot mention a vegan recipe without starting the recipe with some version of "remember when you could just eat steak and foie gras at every meal without being harangued by an activist about animals or the environment or whatever, anyway here's this thing that's "vegan" I guess ugh." They even started a vegetarian recipe newsletter to cash in on the changing relationship people have with food, and even in that thing the tone is resentful* longing for an imagined Manhattanite audience of decades past.
In the end I cancelled because I drew the same conclusion that Doyle comes to here. I didn't just age out of comfort with NYT's standards, I outgrew them. I got smarter, my training accumulated, my life experience compounded those things and, boom. I realized I was hanging onto the NYT but not taking them seriously—and tradition is not a reason to pay for that kind of information.
FWIW I've done the same with the Guardian, where my subscription ends in May and I won't renew it.
Apologies for the language but my ex used to say that their recipes always have an implied very specific gendered slur at the end of the title, which really fits in with the conclusions from this article. As in, "vegan cacio e pepe, you pu**ies.")
posted by late afternoon dreaming hotel at 3:35 AM on March 2, 2023 [18 favorites]
From that Vanity Fair piece, I read that the NYT spokesperson said, “It is not acceptable to publicly align with an advocacy group or publicly criticize colleagues’ work.” I get the former, but I had no idea the latter was part of journalistic ethics. Is that a Thing? Is all the journalistic sniping I hear takes place on Twitter only ever between outlets, rather than within them, and as a workplace rule?
As I mentioned in the other thread, Paul Krugman has pointed out that the NYT's policy against "publicly criticiz[ing] colleagues’ work" prevents him from noting when the NYT's vast stable of conservative columnists is lying. This policy does not serve the truth.
Not just that, but the war against abortion (which, remember, was selected because the Religious Right could no longer openly use racism as a rallying flag) wound up blowing up in their face as it turned out that people actually thought bodily autonomy for women was an important right. Thus the hard pivot - because they've lost their old targets.
Unfortunately, movement conservatism has staked out such an extremist position on abortion that Republicans can't soften or modify their stance, lest they face backlash from their base, even if overall abortion is an electoral loser. Red states are even now in a race to the bottom to outlaw abortion, even as they are passing anti-trans bills.
Rank-and-file Republicans are not the only ones who have been bamboozled by the conservative movement's decades-long propaganda campaign to characterize the media as "liberal." Sadly, many liberals and/or Democrats believe it too, to the point that the Times can use its perception of being liberal to sell its readership on fundamentally conservative viewpoints that benefit the paper's ownership and hardly anybody else.
The 2016 presidential campaign was close enough that the Times' relentlessly anti-Clinton coverage arguably helped tip the electoral college to Trump, and, one massive tax cut for the rich and three SCOTUS judges later, here we are.
posted by Gelatin at 4:47 AM on March 2, 2023 [18 favorites]
As I mentioned in the other thread, Paul Krugman has pointed out that the NYT's policy against "publicly criticiz[ing] colleagues’ work" prevents him from noting when the NYT's vast stable of conservative columnists is lying. This policy does not serve the truth.
Not just that, but the war against abortion (which, remember, was selected because the Religious Right could no longer openly use racism as a rallying flag) wound up blowing up in their face as it turned out that people actually thought bodily autonomy for women was an important right. Thus the hard pivot - because they've lost their old targets.
Unfortunately, movement conservatism has staked out such an extremist position on abortion that Republicans can't soften or modify their stance, lest they face backlash from their base, even if overall abortion is an electoral loser. Red states are even now in a race to the bottom to outlaw abortion, even as they are passing anti-trans bills.
Rank-and-file Republicans are not the only ones who have been bamboozled by the conservative movement's decades-long propaganda campaign to characterize the media as "liberal." Sadly, many liberals and/or Democrats believe it too, to the point that the Times can use its perception of being liberal to sell its readership on fundamentally conservative viewpoints that benefit the paper's ownership and hardly anybody else.
The 2016 presidential campaign was close enough that the Times' relentlessly anti-Clinton coverage arguably helped tip the electoral college to Trump, and, one massive tax cut for the rich and three SCOTUS judges later, here we are.
posted by Gelatin at 4:47 AM on March 2, 2023 [18 favorites]
The NYT has never been a progressive paper, at least in the many decades that I have been reading it. They represent the establishment, the established order, especially as personified by upper income New York based readers. That these people may tend to vote for Democrats does not take away from the essentially conservative bias of the paper. My memory, which is perhaps a biased recollection, is that decades ago the NYT published many pieces criticizing the movement to disinvest from South Africa, that the NYT made AIDS a scary gay disease, that they pushed the narrative that Jimmy Carter was weak, and on and on, always many steps behind progressive changes. To be fair, they would often give some space to progressive voices, but the balance fell hard to keeping the status quo, no matter how toxic. Then there is Judith Fucking Miller and the Iraq war. She gets much of the blame and hate but they supported this crap the whole way. Despite all of their limitations and failings the NYT remains an important part of journalism, and journalism is so much under attack these days. This current dalliance with anti-trans reporting comes at a dangerous time and endangers the paper and journalism in general. When will the madness stop?
posted by caddis at 5:59 AM on March 2, 2023 [19 favorites]
posted by caddis at 5:59 AM on March 2, 2023 [19 favorites]
This is very interesting to me. I'm a Canadian news junkie, and I used to read NYT every day but have drifted to WaPo over the past year or so. It seems to have better, more objective, and more in-depth reporting and analysis now, whereas, at least to me, the reverse was true in the somewhat recent past. Could this be related to leadership changes in both orgs?
It seems that NYT is playing to their audience to some extent: upper income east coasters, who front as liberal but have deeply-seated conservative streaks. From that perspective, it seems to share some characteristics with Fox News!
posted by sid at 6:52 AM on March 2, 2023 [5 favorites]
It seems that NYT is playing to their audience to some extent: upper income east coasters, who front as liberal but have deeply-seated conservative streaks. From that perspective, it seems to share some characteristics with Fox News!
posted by sid at 6:52 AM on March 2, 2023 [5 favorites]
I want to say, though, that this discourse seems like it's drifting into "this isn't really about trans people, it's about capitalism, or clicks, or the NYT in general", and I want to make clear that this is, in fact, about trans people.
Fascism has content. It can be used cynically by people who don't agree with its content but just want power, but it has content - that's what makes it appealing. There are a lot of ways to get power, even a lot of right-wing ways, and people choose.
Part of the content of fascism is patriarchal control over people's bodies so that the bodies can be used to reproduce heirs and labor, and so that the bodies can represent value and power. So on that level, trans people are hated because AMAB people are refusing to become patriarchs and AFAB people are refusing to serve as wombs, and both are asserting that they should be allowed to participate fully in society without complying with its gender premises (like, if you want our labor, you have to let us be visibly gender non-conforming, etc).
Fascists want sons, wives and mistresses. If you have an AFAB child and you think he's going to grow up to wield power (whether that's in your post-apocalyptic slavery dome world or whatever) and then that child is trans, she has failed and betrayed you, shamed you in front of your peers, etc. If you see sexy fifteen year old girls and think "I could fuck them, or at least I could when they are a little older" and then those same fifteen year olds transition, they are denying you your sexual rights.
If you know that anyone who looks cis and compliant could be trans, your whole world is out of your control. You have to make being trans impossible, even if there aren't a lot of trans people.
Fascists don't want anyone anywhere to be able to deny them anything, especially their patriarchal and sexual rights. Just knowing that someone somewhere is neither wanting to inherit from them, wanting to get fucked by them or wanting to bear their kid upsets them. If those people actually have the power to say no, it's time for apocalyptic rage.
On another level, fascism is about fear and control (Male Fantasies by Klaus Theleweit, is very good on this. If things are fluid, if they can change, if they have insides that are different from their outsides, if they are "feminine" (fluid, etc) - those things are hateful and need to be controlled and subdued. If people can change their genders, if their "insides" don't match their "outsides", if their genders are unpredictable or hard to read instead of instantly stereotyped and legible, that's extremely frightening to the fascist, and has to be crushed.
Trans people are, yes, scapegoated by the right because there are few of us and because it allows the recycling of the old familiar rhetoric. But this is also about trans people and the way that transness [is one of the things] that offends fascism and patriarchy.
All those higher ups at the NYT - fundamentally, they want to crush the possibility that they would ever have to tell their buddies at Davos or the Hamptons or wherever the fuck they go that their kid or their spouse is transitioning. That would be a huge shame, failure, insult to their name and masculinity. They'd rather have dead kids and miserable partners because they need to prop up their father-fascist self-image, but they think that if they fash hard enough they will never have to worry about it either way.
posted by Frowner at 7:16 AM on March 2, 2023 [95 favorites]
Fascism has content. It can be used cynically by people who don't agree with its content but just want power, but it has content - that's what makes it appealing. There are a lot of ways to get power, even a lot of right-wing ways, and people choose.
Part of the content of fascism is patriarchal control over people's bodies so that the bodies can be used to reproduce heirs and labor, and so that the bodies can represent value and power. So on that level, trans people are hated because AMAB people are refusing to become patriarchs and AFAB people are refusing to serve as wombs, and both are asserting that they should be allowed to participate fully in society without complying with its gender premises (like, if you want our labor, you have to let us be visibly gender non-conforming, etc).
Fascists want sons, wives and mistresses. If you have an AFAB child and you think he's going to grow up to wield power (whether that's in your post-apocalyptic slavery dome world or whatever) and then that child is trans, she has failed and betrayed you, shamed you in front of your peers, etc. If you see sexy fifteen year old girls and think "I could fuck them, or at least I could when they are a little older" and then those same fifteen year olds transition, they are denying you your sexual rights.
If you know that anyone who looks cis and compliant could be trans, your whole world is out of your control. You have to make being trans impossible, even if there aren't a lot of trans people.
Fascists don't want anyone anywhere to be able to deny them anything, especially their patriarchal and sexual rights. Just knowing that someone somewhere is neither wanting to inherit from them, wanting to get fucked by them or wanting to bear their kid upsets them. If those people actually have the power to say no, it's time for apocalyptic rage.
On another level, fascism is about fear and control (Male Fantasies by Klaus Theleweit, is very good on this. If things are fluid, if they can change, if they have insides that are different from their outsides, if they are "feminine" (fluid, etc) - those things are hateful and need to be controlled and subdued. If people can change their genders, if their "insides" don't match their "outsides", if their genders are unpredictable or hard to read instead of instantly stereotyped and legible, that's extremely frightening to the fascist, and has to be crushed.
Trans people are, yes, scapegoated by the right because there are few of us and because it allows the recycling of the old familiar rhetoric. But this is also about trans people and the way that transness [is one of the things] that offends fascism and patriarchy.
All those higher ups at the NYT - fundamentally, they want to crush the possibility that they would ever have to tell their buddies at Davos or the Hamptons or wherever the fuck they go that their kid or their spouse is transitioning. That would be a huge shame, failure, insult to their name and masculinity. They'd rather have dead kids and miserable partners because they need to prop up their father-fascist self-image, but they think that if they fash hard enough they will never have to worry about it either way.
posted by Frowner at 7:16 AM on March 2, 2023 [95 favorites]
(I should clarify that "bear their kid", etc, isn't just "having a child" or carrying a child in your body - it's participating in fascist reproduction to make patriarchal heirs, daughters to trade with other men, etc. Trans people do get pregnant, have kids with partners, etc, but having kids in a way that isn't about patriarchal reproduction is not going to satisfy the fascists.
That's why no amount of "well, gender expression and gender roles may change, but most people are going to go on having families and having kids because people tend to like doing that, so the world will wag on and you might as well not freak out" doesn't calm people down - they say they're worried about kids and families, but they mean patriarchal families.)
posted by Frowner at 7:27 AM on March 2, 2023 [26 favorites]
That's why no amount of "well, gender expression and gender roles may change, but most people are going to go on having families and having kids because people tend to like doing that, so the world will wag on and you might as well not freak out" doesn't calm people down - they say they're worried about kids and families, but they mean patriarchal families.)
posted by Frowner at 7:27 AM on March 2, 2023 [26 favorites]
And then there's this sympathetic NYT podcast with a Republican politician fighting the good fight and voting against anti-trans legislation. Seriously feels back and forth. Or "both sides," I guess.
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:55 AM on March 2, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by jenfullmoon at 7:55 AM on March 2, 2023 [2 favorites]
Counter argument(ish): The Washington Post opinion section is a sad, toxic wasteland
The New York Times opinion section regularly publishes absolute tripe – most recently, a barrage of virulent and ignorant anti-trans rhetoric and panicking about wokeism. Several of its columnists are well past their sell-by date. Some are just trolls.
But there’s no denying that overall, it remains intellectually stimulating, ground-breaking, and consequential.
The Post’s opinion section doesn’t come in for remotely as much criticism as the Times’s — but that’s because nobody cares about it enough to criticize it.
posted by Artw at 8:58 AM on March 2, 2023 [3 favorites]
The New York Times opinion section regularly publishes absolute tripe – most recently, a barrage of virulent and ignorant anti-trans rhetoric and panicking about wokeism. Several of its columnists are well past their sell-by date. Some are just trolls.
But there’s no denying that overall, it remains intellectually stimulating, ground-breaking, and consequential.
The Post’s opinion section doesn’t come in for remotely as much criticism as the Times’s — but that’s because nobody cares about it enough to criticize it.
posted by Artw at 8:58 AM on March 2, 2023 [3 favorites]
Counter argument(ish)
I dunno; the second sentence "What should be a lively, thought-provoking, agenda-setting forum on public policy and other matters is instead dominated by a bevy of unoriginal right-wingers who make stuff up, defend the indefensible, and bore the tears out of you, all at the same time," basically applies to both.
posted by Gelatin at 10:13 AM on March 2, 2023 [2 favorites]
I dunno; the second sentence "What should be a lively, thought-provoking, agenda-setting forum on public policy and other matters is instead dominated by a bevy of unoriginal right-wingers who make stuff up, defend the indefensible, and bore the tears out of you, all at the same time," basically applies to both.
posted by Gelatin at 10:13 AM on March 2, 2023 [2 favorites]
I think they’re basically giving The NY Times the backhanded compliment of saying they at least have more variety of bad views and the very occasional good one.
posted by Artw at 10:17 AM on March 2, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by Artw at 10:17 AM on March 2, 2023 [1 favorite]
As an OG warblogger from back in the day who gave it up but has watched other people who were in that crowd go on to become Big Media Names, my take on all these editorial sections is that the people who are writing the opinion columns are the folks blessed by the establishment media and the overall opinion section biases (even those of the selected liberal folks) reflect that.
Similarly, my take on establishment newspapers is that any paper that has a business section aimed at stock owners and business owners is showing its bias right there. Frowner's comment about reproducing patriarchal families (which really resonates with me as a cis childfree woman) suggests there are similar factors that I ought to be looking at in other coverage around children/schools/families to find an equally demonstrative point of obvious coverage bias.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 11:09 AM on March 2, 2023 [5 favorites]
Similarly, my take on establishment newspapers is that any paper that has a business section aimed at stock owners and business owners is showing its bias right there. Frowner's comment about reproducing patriarchal families (which really resonates with me as a cis childfree woman) suggests there are similar factors that I ought to be looking at in other coverage around children/schools/families to find an equally demonstrative point of obvious coverage bias.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 11:09 AM on March 2, 2023 [5 favorites]
Counter argument(ish): The Washington Post opinion section is a sad, toxic wasteland
I haven't gone through every example, but the few links I clicked on were mischaracterized by the writer of this article. For example, the column about welfare reform was not advocating for cuts so much as putting the social programs on a sustainable financial path to avoid sudden drops in payment, through, for example, increasing taxes and increasing the eligibility age to 67. Neither of these seem like terrible ideas, especially since people live for much longer than when the programs were designed.
EDIT: it does seem quite problematic if the editorial board is all-white, though
posted by sid at 11:12 AM on March 2, 2023 [2 favorites]
I haven't gone through every example, but the few links I clicked on were mischaracterized by the writer of this article. For example, the column about welfare reform was not advocating for cuts so much as putting the social programs on a sustainable financial path to avoid sudden drops in payment, through, for example, increasing taxes and increasing the eligibility age to 67. Neither of these seem like terrible ideas, especially since people live for much longer than when the programs were designed.
EDIT: it does seem quite problematic if the editorial board is all-white, though
posted by sid at 11:12 AM on March 2, 2023 [2 favorites]
Um…
The potential trade-offs aren’t painless, but some mix of benefit reductions and tax increases is necessary
Call me paranoid but I have some suspicions about which side of the equation they are keenest on.
posted by Artw at 12:19 PM on March 2, 2023 [4 favorites]
The potential trade-offs aren’t painless, but some mix of benefit reductions and tax increases is necessary
Call me paranoid but I have some suspicions about which side of the equation they are keenest on.
posted by Artw at 12:19 PM on March 2, 2023 [4 favorites]
The maximum taxable earnings for Social Security this year is $160,200. Anything anyone makes above that cap doesn't get taxed for social security.
It sure does seem like social security could be made sustainable without forcing millions of people to work extra years, if we could, oh, I don't know, just eliminate that cap.
I'm sure that rich people who own newspapers don't want to encourage that sort of thing, though.
posted by MrVisible at 12:43 PM on March 2, 2023 [31 favorites]
It sure does seem like social security could be made sustainable without forcing millions of people to work extra years, if we could, oh, I don't know, just eliminate that cap.
I'm sure that rich people who own newspapers don't want to encourage that sort of thing, though.
posted by MrVisible at 12:43 PM on March 2, 2023 [31 favorites]
How many good apples does it take to justify a rotten barrel?
I know there are ok articles in the NYT. And I know that it's unpleasant to untangle the emotions felt when reading stuff you feel positive about from a venue that puts out horrible articles.
But the NYT presents itself as an institution. As a single entity whose value rests on a monolithic reputation for value.
And it prints articles that are knowingly furthering an increasingly dangerous environment for trans people. In the past it's done that to gay people. Let's not even get into the class bullshit and the way it acts to reinforce wealth stratification and thereby all the very personal horrors of poverty for a wide swath of people in a country with a massively underfunded and inadequate social safety net that is constantly under attack from more privileged people.
These self-aware actions carry culpability. The NYT is not a democracy nor a collective. Hierarchy, ownership, and capital control it. The outcry over these articles is visible and there can be no believable claim by those holding the reins of a news outlet priding itself on world awareness and intellectual depth to being unaware of this criticism.
The people holding the reins at the NYT have blood on their hands and they are ok with that. They are more than ok. They are happy to have more.
If you "both sides" this you are complicit. I have no more ability to turn the other cheek. I tell you, the sanctification of forgiveness is weaponized to enshrine the persistence of abuse.
I do not forgive this.
posted by allium cepa at 2:10 PM on March 2, 2023 [7 favorites]
I know there are ok articles in the NYT. And I know that it's unpleasant to untangle the emotions felt when reading stuff you feel positive about from a venue that puts out horrible articles.
But the NYT presents itself as an institution. As a single entity whose value rests on a monolithic reputation for value.
And it prints articles that are knowingly furthering an increasingly dangerous environment for trans people. In the past it's done that to gay people. Let's not even get into the class bullshit and the way it acts to reinforce wealth stratification and thereby all the very personal horrors of poverty for a wide swath of people in a country with a massively underfunded and inadequate social safety net that is constantly under attack from more privileged people.
These self-aware actions carry culpability. The NYT is not a democracy nor a collective. Hierarchy, ownership, and capital control it. The outcry over these articles is visible and there can be no believable claim by those holding the reins of a news outlet priding itself on world awareness and intellectual depth to being unaware of this criticism.
The people holding the reins at the NYT have blood on their hands and they are ok with that. They are more than ok. They are happy to have more.
If you "both sides" this you are complicit. I have no more ability to turn the other cheek. I tell you, the sanctification of forgiveness is weaponized to enshrine the persistence of abuse.
I do not forgive this.
posted by allium cepa at 2:10 PM on March 2, 2023 [7 favorites]
The people holding the reins at the NYT have blood on their hands and they are ok with that.
My impression is that having blood on their hands hasn't been a concern for the NYT for many decades.
posted by clawsoon at 2:15 PM on March 2, 2023 [6 favorites]
My impression is that having blood on their hands hasn't been a concern for the NYT for many decades.
posted by clawsoon at 2:15 PM on March 2, 2023 [6 favorites]
@clawsoon
That's my impression as well. But I wanted to drive it home as a fundamental reality that needs to be acknowledged in any discussion of the value and moral standing of NYT.
It's not easy to hold in my mind the reality that a significant part of the US wishes I and people like me were dead. It makes it even harder to get through the days. But I'll be damned if I participate in the gaslighting around the intent and self-awareness of an institution that is fomenting oppression and violence towards trans people.
posted by allium cepa at 2:35 PM on March 2, 2023 [10 favorites]
That's my impression as well. But I wanted to drive it home as a fundamental reality that needs to be acknowledged in any discussion of the value and moral standing of NYT.
It's not easy to hold in my mind the reality that a significant part of the US wishes I and people like me were dead. It makes it even harder to get through the days. But I'll be damned if I participate in the gaslighting around the intent and self-awareness of an institution that is fomenting oppression and violence towards trans people.
posted by allium cepa at 2:35 PM on March 2, 2023 [10 favorites]
It sure does seem like social security could be made sustainable without forcing millions of people to work extra years, if we could, oh, I don't know, just eliminate that cap.
I'm sure that rich people who own newspapers don't want to encourage that sort of thing, though.
For fun I like to read articles about "troubled" or "insolvent" Social Security and count how many don't clearly spell out that over 80% of a millionaire's income is completely exempt from Social Security taxes. Don't even get me started about billionaires. Adjusting that - which would affect less than 10% of the U.S. population who are already doing well - is somehow less politically palatable than reducing already meager payments to the other 90%, but would fix any so-called insolvency overnight.
And yeah, national TV news producers and anchors are the last people who want to bring that up.
posted by mediareport at 5:46 PM on March 2, 2023 [10 favorites]
I'm sure that rich people who own newspapers don't want to encourage that sort of thing, though.
For fun I like to read articles about "troubled" or "insolvent" Social Security and count how many don't clearly spell out that over 80% of a millionaire's income is completely exempt from Social Security taxes. Don't even get me started about billionaires. Adjusting that - which would affect less than 10% of the U.S. population who are already doing well - is somehow less politically palatable than reducing already meager payments to the other 90%, but would fix any so-called insolvency overnight.
And yeah, national TV news producers and anchors are the last people who want to bring that up.
posted by mediareport at 5:46 PM on March 2, 2023 [10 favorites]
It sure does seem like social security could be made sustainable without forcing millions of people to work extra years, if we could, oh, I don't know, just eliminate that cap.
Not quite. According to the professional actuaries at SSA, it would eliminate about 3/4 of the 75-year gap.
I'm sure that rich people who own newspapers don't want to encourage that sort of thing, though.
The Washington Post editorial board, like much of the political establishment, calls for a mix of increases in taxes and reductions to scheduled benefits. (Reminder: Doing nothing means an automatic benefit cut of around 20 percent in a decade or so.) Increasing the taxable maximum is the most popular way of raising taxes.
The rich people who own newspaper (like the Post and Times) are calling for tax increases on the rich, though they might be not as high as you'd like.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 11:26 AM on March 3, 2023 [3 favorites]
Not quite. According to the professional actuaries at SSA, it would eliminate about 3/4 of the 75-year gap.
I'm sure that rich people who own newspapers don't want to encourage that sort of thing, though.
The Washington Post editorial board, like much of the political establishment, calls for a mix of increases in taxes and reductions to scheduled benefits. (Reminder: Doing nothing means an automatic benefit cut of around 20 percent in a decade or so.) Increasing the taxable maximum is the most popular way of raising taxes.
The rich people who own newspaper (like the Post and Times) are calling for tax increases on the rich, though they might be not as high as you'd like.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 11:26 AM on March 3, 2023 [3 favorites]
(This is getting off topic, but....)
I'm not overly familiar with the dynamics of social security politics in the States, and I cannot begin to claim to understand the motives of the WaPo editorial board. The notion of raising the retirement age for a public pension, though, has been considered and implemented in several jurisdictions, including many 'socialist' countries such as Belgium, Finland, Iceland, Australia, and Sweden. My understanding is that it's difficult to make the math work without doing so when we're all living so much longer and having fewer children.
posted by sid at 11:52 AM on March 3, 2023
I'm not overly familiar with the dynamics of social security politics in the States, and I cannot begin to claim to understand the motives of the WaPo editorial board. The notion of raising the retirement age for a public pension, though, has been considered and implemented in several jurisdictions, including many 'socialist' countries such as Belgium, Finland, Iceland, Australia, and Sweden. My understanding is that it's difficult to make the math work without doing so when we're all living so much longer and having fewer children.
posted by sid at 11:52 AM on March 3, 2023
Meanwhile in just the last two days we've seen bigoted laws that block life saving health care from trans citizens in Kentucky and Tennessee - and, in both states, lawmakers can point at the so-called paper of record as supporting their evil.
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:13 PM on March 3, 2023 [3 favorites]
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:13 PM on March 3, 2023 [3 favorites]
So, a Top Guardian Editor Was Married to the Founder of Mumsnet
posted by Artw at 3:25 PM on March 3, 2023 [6 favorites]
posted by Artw at 3:25 PM on March 3, 2023 [6 favorites]
Liberal pundits promoted a lurid account of alleged abuses at a gender clinic. Now the whistleblower’s case seems to be falling apart
posted by Artw at 4:40 PM on March 3, 2023 [8 favorites]
posted by Artw at 4:40 PM on March 3, 2023 [8 favorites]
How shocking that the widely and luridly reported obvious bullshit turned out to be bullshit.
posted by kyrademon at 5:18 PM on March 3, 2023 [7 favorites]
posted by kyrademon at 5:18 PM on March 3, 2023 [7 favorites]
Similarly, my take on establishment newspapers is that any paper that has a business section aimed at stock owners and business owners is showing its bias right there. Frowner's comment about reproducing patriarchal families (which really resonates with me as a cis childfree woman) suggests there are similar factors that I ought to be looking at in other coverage around children/schools/families to find an equally demonstrative point of obvious coverage bias.
I can't recall where I read it but I remember reading a post from a liberal commentator who said they only reads the Financial Times and only the news part because they thought that the serious news was extremely accurate because the people who subscribed valued actual accurate facts more than at any other news outlet. They of course said the editorial pages were absolute garbage. I really wish that there was some basic standard for fact checking required in editorials. As it is outright lying is completely acceptable to every editorial board and the spillover taints even the quality investigative journalism some papers occasionally do.
The saddest part of all this is that the NY Times is only paper media outlet that seems to have figured out how to thrive today. All the other majors are being shrunk down to nothing by private equity disinvestors.
posted by srboisvert at 8:54 AM on March 7, 2023
I can't recall where I read it but I remember reading a post from a liberal commentator who said they only reads the Financial Times and only the news part because they thought that the serious news was extremely accurate because the people who subscribed valued actual accurate facts more than at any other news outlet. They of course said the editorial pages were absolute garbage. I really wish that there was some basic standard for fact checking required in editorials. As it is outright lying is completely acceptable to every editorial board and the spillover taints even the quality investigative journalism some papers occasionally do.
The saddest part of all this is that the NY Times is only paper media outlet that seems to have figured out how to thrive today. All the other majors are being shrunk down to nothing by private equity disinvestors.
posted by srboisvert at 8:54 AM on March 7, 2023
My father has a similar philosophy - not that he only reads the WSJ but he does read it despite being so far left he's almost on the right, with the same reasoning - that the subscribers want actual facts to guide their investments. But the opinion section is at least as garbage as the FT opinion section and maybe more.
posted by subdee at 9:16 AM on March 9, 2023
posted by subdee at 9:16 AM on March 9, 2023
I used to have that justification for reading The Economist.
It was misguided.
posted by Artw at 10:39 AM on March 9, 2023 [2 favorites]
It was misguided.
posted by Artw at 10:39 AM on March 9, 2023 [2 favorites]
« Older Eli Lilly drops insulin prices | Hell Yeah to the Chief Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by tigrrrlily at 2:46 PM on March 1, 2023 [57 favorites]