I love the piece on the Times. I'd seen a lot of very shallow, hyper-partisan anger on both sides about the whole Tom Cotton controversy, but this is the most thoughtful and compelling argument for "the NYT has become overly infused by politics" that I've seen. Thanks for sharing!
Great line: "Our role, we knew, was to help readers understand such threats, and this required empathetic – not sympathetic – reporting. This is not an easy distinction but good reporters make it: they learn to understand and communicate the sources and nature of a toxic ideology without justifying it, much less advocating it."
I really tried to read the James Bennet piece, but I just could not get through it. The problem is not even that he's right or wrong about the decisions he made when at the Times, or the Times' direction more broadly, but that he seems to greatly overestimate his own importance and that of the Times more broadly.
My general impression of the NYT is that it occasionally publishes some really good investigative journalism, but mostly their national politics coverage is noticeably inferior to WaPo's. And James Bennet wasn't even a news editor! He was just in charge of the opinion page! He was just never as important as he seems to think he is.
It reminds me of my conviction that the very term "cancel culture" is proof that the whole "cancel culture" discussion is overly dominated by elite media figures for whom "you land a cushy TV gig but then your show gets cancelled because you made a joke that didn't land" is the worst thing they can imagine ever happening to a person.
> It reminds me of my conviction that the very term "cancel culture" is proof that the whole "cancel culture" discussion is overly dominated by elite media figures for whom "you land a cushy TV gig but then your show gets cancelled because you made a joke that didn't land" is the worst thing they can imagine ever happening to a person.
Is this different from the way talented wordsmiths and entertainers also dominate every other discussion that involves the careers of a lot of talented wordsmiths and entertainers?
> Henry Kissinger died at 100 last November. Through his support for American war crimes, genocidal regimes, and coups against democratically elected leaders, his actions led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. He remained well-respected and very influential in politics until his death.
Are you adequately familiar with the arguments that Kissinger did more harm than good? Considering not just the real harms you mention, but even a few less-known, self-serving actions you don't mention. I feel like this is something your effective altruism training and consideration of trolley problems has equipped you to weigh up. I apologize if this comes across as patronizing; I don't know how else to word it.
> The decreasing total fertility rate in the United States is mostly driven by a reduction in births among people younger than 24. Anti-teen-pregnancy programs worked too well?
I was aware of the decrease there, but hadn't connected it to the overall decline that's getting so much attention. They were just in silos in my mind. Thanks!
I'll quote the relevant statement at Ozy's CBO link for anyone else interested:
> For the 20 years before the 2007–2009 recession, the total fertility rate for women of childbearing age—ages 14 to 49—averaged 2.02 children per woman. After peaking at 2.12 in 2007, the total fertility rate generally fell (largely because of lower fertility rates among women age 24 or younger), reaching a low of 1.64 births per woman in 2020 and then increasing to 1.67 births per woman in 2023.
> The 2023 Hugo Award nominating data was recently released. Two works (the Sandman TV show and R. F. Kuang’s Babel) and two authors (Xiran Jay Zhao and Paul Weimer) were inexplicably declared ineligible even though they weren’t. It’s believed this is in retaliation for the authors’ criticism of the Chinese Communist Party. The statistics themselves are very fishy.
I love the piece on the Times. I'd seen a lot of very shallow, hyper-partisan anger on both sides about the whole Tom Cotton controversy, but this is the most thoughtful and compelling argument for "the NYT has become overly infused by politics" that I've seen. Thanks for sharing!
Great line: "Our role, we knew, was to help readers understand such threats, and this required empathetic – not sympathetic – reporting. This is not an easy distinction but good reporters make it: they learn to understand and communicate the sources and nature of a toxic ideology without justifying it, much less advocating it."
Wait, the CCP hated Babel too? I never thought I'd agree with them on anything!
Typo: "should to have" should be "should have"
I think you'll love this story
https://mirrorsea.xyz/
I really tried to read the James Bennet piece, but I just could not get through it. The problem is not even that he's right or wrong about the decisions he made when at the Times, or the Times' direction more broadly, but that he seems to greatly overestimate his own importance and that of the Times more broadly.
My general impression of the NYT is that it occasionally publishes some really good investigative journalism, but mostly their national politics coverage is noticeably inferior to WaPo's. And James Bennet wasn't even a news editor! He was just in charge of the opinion page! He was just never as important as he seems to think he is.
It reminds me of my conviction that the very term "cancel culture" is proof that the whole "cancel culture" discussion is overly dominated by elite media figures for whom "you land a cushy TV gig but then your show gets cancelled because you made a joke that didn't land" is the worst thing they can imagine ever happening to a person.
> It reminds me of my conviction that the very term "cancel culture" is proof that the whole "cancel culture" discussion is overly dominated by elite media figures for whom "you land a cushy TV gig but then your show gets cancelled because you made a joke that didn't land" is the worst thing they can imagine ever happening to a person.
Is this different from the way talented wordsmiths and entertainers also dominate every other discussion that involves the careers of a lot of talented wordsmiths and entertainers?
> Henry Kissinger died at 100 last November. Through his support for American war crimes, genocidal regimes, and coups against democratically elected leaders, his actions led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people. He remained well-respected and very influential in politics until his death.
Are you adequately familiar with the arguments that Kissinger did more harm than good? Considering not just the real harms you mention, but even a few less-known, self-serving actions you don't mention. I feel like this is something your effective altruism training and consideration of trolley problems has equipped you to weigh up. I apologize if this comes across as patronizing; I don't know how else to word it.
> The decreasing total fertility rate in the United States is mostly driven by a reduction in births among people younger than 24. Anti-teen-pregnancy programs worked too well?
I was aware of the decrease there, but hadn't connected it to the overall decline that's getting so much attention. They were just in silos in my mind. Thanks!
I'll quote the relevant statement at Ozy's CBO link for anyone else interested:
> For the 20 years before the 2007–2009 recession, the total fertility rate for women of childbearing age—ages 14 to 49—averaged 2.02 children per woman. After peaking at 2.12 in 2007, the total fertility rate generally fell (largely because of lower fertility rates among women age 24 or younger), reaching a low of 1.64 births per woman in 2020 and then increasing to 1.67 births per woman in 2023.
> The 2023 Hugo Award nominating data was recently released. Two works (the Sandman TV show and R. F. Kuang’s Babel) and two authors (Xiran Jay Zhao and Paul Weimer) were inexplicably declared ineligible even though they weren’t. It’s believed this is in retaliation for the authors’ criticism of the Chinese Communist Party. The statistics themselves are very fishy.
Update. Leaked emails show they were indeed excluded due to criticisms of the CCP and because of pro-LGBTQ stances: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7JaBg1pX_I
Update, it seems like they also discriminated against chinese authors, so a real mix of different types of discrimination: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwEvKNpoRHk
I enjoyed the link about meditation, very relatable