Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Internal message at New York Times, a few days ago :
"Anyone who sees any piece of Opinion journalism, headlines, social posts, photos—you name it—that gives you the slightest pause, please call or text me immediately.”
this is where we're at
"Anyone who sees any piece of Opinion journalism, headlines, social posts, photos—you name it—that gives you the slightest pause, please call or text me immediately.”
this is where we're at
Show More
Probably looking to sack a few jernos and save money as sales of the paper continue to collapse
Companies terrified of doing the 'wrong thing' right now given the mob has reduced the police to inaction in many places.
Spilled over in the UK last week with a mob destroying a Grade 2 listed monument allowed to happen by the police.
Now we have calls for police to be disbanded.
Businesses must be concerned.
Spilled over in the UK last week with a mob destroying a Grade 2 listed monument allowed to happen by the police.
Now we have calls for police to be disbanded.
Businesses must be concerned.
Just gets more comical by the day
We were all dying 4 weeks ago and now its "wrong think" racism
We were all dying 4 weeks ago and now its "wrong think" racism
Are op-eds or editorials usually published without oversight of the editor-in-chief?
There's an Orwellian difference between a writer sending a draft to their editor before publishing
and your editor asking all your colleagues to spy on you in advance
HTH
and your editor asking all your colleagues to spy on you in advance
HTH
Is it about spying in advance? To me it sounds like making the editor aware of things that might've slipped through her control, so she can have another look.
Like when the Times published that anti-semitic cartoon.
Like when the Times published that anti-semitic cartoon.
It's just the failing NY Times anyway. So who really cares if the woke piece of trash becomes an even woker piece of trash?
The opinions that might 'slip through' are very specifically opinions that BLM are not on board with.
it is in the aftermath of the NYT firing their opinion editor for allowing a 'Building Matter too' article.
it is in the aftermath of the NYT firing their opinion editor for allowing a 'Building Matter too' article.
Buildings Matter was another newspaper.
NYT editor was replaced for not reading an op-ed that urged a total show of force with the military before having it published.
NYT editor was replaced for not reading an op-ed that urged a total show of force with the military before having it published.
and a few other things like the anti-semitic cartoon on his watch in the past
More background :
On the same day that the Poetry Foundation published its denunciation of racism, the opinion section of the New York Times published an op-ed by a Republican senator, Tom Cotton, advocating the use of military troops to defend American cities from looting and riots. The piece remains on the Times website, yet now has been tagged prominently with an “editors’ note” explaining why it supposedly didn’t meet the newspaper’s lofty standards. (This is the very same Times opinion section, I might add, that, just two days later, published an op-ed instructing white people to socially excommunicate “relatives and loved ones” who refuse to attend protests or donate money to black causes.) Over the weekend, the responsible section editor, James Bennett, resigned his job. And the Times coverage of his removal plays up the idea of “a significant breakdown in our editing processes.” But the only reason anyone in management cared about this alleged “breakdown” is that prominent Times writers used their public Twitter accounts and corporate messaging channels to attack Cotton’s piece and the Times decision to run it, with some claiming that its appearance put them in “danger.”
What made the Times‘ surrender to its own in-house cancel chorus especially disappointing is that Cotton’s piece hadn’t even argued for a particularly radical position. Survey data collected on May 31st and June 1st, two days before Cotton’s piece appeared on the Times site, suggested that a majority of American adults—including 41 percent of self-described “liberal” survey respondents—supported “calling in the US military to supplement city police forces.” This included 37 percent of black respondents. (Among black respondents aged 45 or higher, the figure was 48 percent.) So it’s not as if Bennett’s section had published excerpts from Mein Kampf under the headline, “Hallowed Words For Troubled Times.”
More shocking still is that the Times gratuitously shamed Bennett’s department by publicly disclosing one-on-one internal messages, right down to what emoji had been used (“a frowning face”) by editor Adam Rubenstein during a Slack conversation with the photo department. And Bennett’s replacement at the Times wasted no time in telling colleagues that snitch culture would be institutionalized under her watch: “Anyone who sees any piece of Opinion journalism, headlines, social posts, photos—you name it—that gives you the slightest pause, please call or text me immediately".
On the same day that the Poetry Foundation published its denunciation of racism, the opinion section of the New York Times published an op-ed by a Republican senator, Tom Cotton, advocating the use of military troops to defend American cities from looting and riots. The piece remains on the Times website, yet now has been tagged prominently with an “editors’ note” explaining why it supposedly didn’t meet the newspaper’s lofty standards. (This is the very same Times opinion section, I might add, that, just two days later, published an op-ed instructing white people to socially excommunicate “relatives and loved ones” who refuse to attend protests or donate money to black causes.) Over the weekend, the responsible section editor, James Bennett, resigned his job. And the Times coverage of his removal plays up the idea of “a significant breakdown in our editing processes.” But the only reason anyone in management cared about this alleged “breakdown” is that prominent Times writers used their public Twitter accounts and corporate messaging channels to attack Cotton’s piece and the Times decision to run it, with some claiming that its appearance put them in “danger.”
What made the Times‘ surrender to its own in-house cancel chorus especially disappointing is that Cotton’s piece hadn’t even argued for a particularly radical position. Survey data collected on May 31st and June 1st, two days before Cotton’s piece appeared on the Times site, suggested that a majority of American adults—including 41 percent of self-described “liberal” survey respondents—supported “calling in the US military to supplement city police forces.” This included 37 percent of black respondents. (Among black respondents aged 45 or higher, the figure was 48 percent.) So it’s not as if Bennett’s section had published excerpts from Mein Kampf under the headline, “Hallowed Words For Troubled Times.”
More shocking still is that the Times gratuitously shamed Bennett’s department by publicly disclosing one-on-one internal messages, right down to what emoji had been used (“a frowning face”) by editor Adam Rubenstein during a Slack conversation with the photo department. And Bennett’s replacement at the Times wasted no time in telling colleagues that snitch culture would be institutionalized under her watch: “Anyone who sees any piece of Opinion journalism, headlines, social posts, photos—you name it—that gives you the slightest pause, please call or text me immediately".
Yes, I'd forgotten which article it was. But if he had read it and allowed it anyway that would have been OK ?
No, probably not. So it's not about quality control it is about censoring anything that BLM don't agree with.
No, probably not. So it's not about quality control it is about censoring anything that BLM don't agree with.
C'mon, there's a difference between some dude urging to use the ultimate authoritarian weapon, the nation's military, against protesting civilians and "anything that BLM don't agree with".
It was his opinion that the military should be deployed. It was in the opinion section.
And they are not know on the look out for articles advocating the army shoot rioters, they are are wanting anything that 'triggers' anyone to be flagged up.
And they are not know on the look out for articles advocating the army shoot rioters, they are are wanting anything that 'triggers' anyone to be flagged up.
Which doesn't mean at all that the editor will just delete everything and anything for which a member of staff voices concerns. As you can see, the Cotton piece wasn't removed either.
Though of course the opinion section has its limits as well, depending on the editorial standards and general leaning of a newspaper. Or would you be fine with The Daily Telegraph printing radical marxist anti-christs that call for the removal of all statues and the murder of baby squirrels in satanic sacrifices all the time because it's the author's opinion after all.
Then you are a lot more relaxed than plenty other self-declared freedom fighters on here who always get their knickers in a twist at the silliest things and opinions voiced.
Like regarding Cummings they were all "The scum media press 
" regarding opinion pieces that called for an apology or a resignation.
" regarding opinion pieces that called for an apology or a resignation.
and that the media should shut up about it and do other things.
Intersting article on the NY times here actually:
https://spectator.us/campus-new-york-times-media-thrives-facebook-audience/
"When Sen. Tom Cotton was granted op-ed space in the New York Times last week, many of the millennial staff were triggered into issuing social media claims that lives were being put in danger, namely those of their African American colleagues.
The fallout has been swift and will have a chilling effect on speech and commentary in major newspapers for years to come. James Bennet, the Times’s editorial director, resigned from his position after defending the paper’s decision to run the column. The writing is on the wall for opinion editors: publish a view, any view from the right side of the political spectrum and you risk losing your job. Would any editor at the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Herald-Tribune, Miami Herald or Washington Post now risk their editorial position? I doubt it."
https://spectator.us/campus-new-york-times-media-thrives-facebook-audience/
"When Sen. Tom Cotton was granted op-ed space in the New York Times last week, many of the millennial staff were triggered into issuing social media claims that lives were being put in danger, namely those of their African American colleagues.
The fallout has been swift and will have a chilling effect on speech and commentary in major newspapers for years to come. James Bennet, the Times’s editorial director, resigned from his position after defending the paper’s decision to run the column. The writing is on the wall for opinion editors: publish a view, any view from the right side of the political spectrum and you risk losing your job. Would any editor at the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Herald-Tribune, Miami Herald or Washington Post now risk their editorial position? I doubt it."
At the risk of saying "I told you so" a lot of this crap is what I've said would happen before on this very forum.
I've commented a number of times on our pathetic "safe space" "no alternate view is allowed" "you are only allowed thoughts we allow" crap that's take over our universities (and social media amongst millenials), and pointed out they would then leave and be going with this sick mindset into our media, namely the BBC etc but other media as well.
And lo it is coming to pass, a backward intolterant takeover, where people are scared of wrongthink.
Orwell was a prophet.
I've commented a number of times on our pathetic "safe space" "no alternate view is allowed" "you are only allowed thoughts we allow" crap that's take over our universities (and social media amongst millenials), and pointed out they would then leave and be going with this sick mindset into our media, namely the BBC etc but other media as well.
And lo it is coming to pass, a backward intolterant takeover, where people are scared of wrongthink.
Orwell was a prophet.
The safe space one is funny because people on here, freedom fighters, are getting their knickers in a twist of history being taught in schools.
or generally any criticism that hurts their safe space world view and nostalgic romanticisation.
Or getting their knickers in a twist at their safe space being violated by same sex couples.
The people from the weirdo fringe of the right-wing love calling others snowflakes, when in fact they, too, are super petite flowers and snowflakes when it comes to the silliest of things. Be it same sex couples, or the role of historical figures being questioned.
They all demand their safe space from all the nasty progressive ideas that violate their upbringing and opinion.
They all demand their safe space from all the nasty progressive ideas that violate their upbringing and opinion.
Forgot to add anything that could potentially hurt their little nationalistic feelings.
I spam around so so so so so much, but two out of two times now, as far as I've seen, you've posted your "spam" under messages of mine that actually weren't.
Which kinda makes you think you are demanding your safe space from messages and opinions you don't like.
Come on sausage munchers it's obvious and in plain sight
Still not worked it out thought you Germans were good at solving problems edy think like sausage muncher it's there in plain sight just needs a little dividing
Sorry edy I have accidentally put a decimal point in that figure it should be 46 so I will give you some time I setting off on the road so if you haven't solved it by midnight I will give you the answer
I don't actually sausages. It's a pathetic food made out of leftover meat that's seasoned to death to hide the rotting taste. So I can't really call onto the puzzle solving superpowers they might or might not give.
I'm at a loss. You aren't a total creep that would monitor, or do calculations regarding, my post count, and surely I have way, way more than 46 posts today anyway. That's my output in about 10 minutes.
You see, I don't really want to support you provoking this thread to be spammed with this puzzle. You can wait until midnight to give me the solution, but you can also provide it immediately as I refuse to take any further part in spamming this thread with more guesses.
You denied been a spammer but admit to sometimes posting 46 posts in 10 minutes who said the sausage munchers don't have a sense of humour.
I denied being a spammer? So what's the solution?
edy • June 10, 2020 9:01 PM BST
I spam around so so so so so much, but two out of two times now, as far as I've seen, you've posted your "spam" under messages of mine that actually weren't.
edy • June 10, 2020 9:01 PM BST
I spam around so so so so so much, but two out of two times now, as far as I've seen, you've posted your "spam" under messages of mine that actually weren't.
I remember you bemoaning a "forum spam unit" recently. Who are the members besides me and Charlie? (who isn't a spammer at all - you just demand your safe space bubble echo chamber)
By macarony on 9 Jun 20 20:05
Looks like the forum spam unit are using the name Charlie tonight same old crack different user name
By macarony on 9 Jun 20 20:05
Looks like the forum spam unit are using the name Charlie tonight same old crack different user name
...no intention to answer the questions to something you started?
I see. 
Stay tight crying yourself into sleep at the thought of me violating your echo chamber safe space.
Stay tight crying yourself into sleep at the thought of me violating your echo chamber safe space.
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539