The New York Times defended hiring former Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens — a writer who has promoted climate denial and bigotry against Arabs — by insisting that it is seeking diversity of thought.
Public Editor Liz Spayd responded to readers’ complaints about Stephens by writing that the Times is looking “to include a wider range of views, not just on the Opinion pages but in its news columns.”
But hiring another prominent writer whose ideology hems close to that of the nation’s elites — in this case, fossil fuel corporations who are polluting the world and advocates of Western military might — is hardly adding intellectual diversity to the pages of the Times.
Here are six categories of writers who would truly broaden and diversify the op-ed pages of the NYT:
1. Bernie Sanders backers: Bernie Sanders is the nation’s most popular sitting politician, but the Times doesn’t employ a single columnist who was vocally supportive of his bid for president. It could change that by hiring some of his prominent backers: philosopher Cornel West, Jacobin editor Bhaskar Sunkara, civil rights scholar Michelle Alexander, labor organizer Jonathan Tasini, and former Nevada Assemblywoman and organizer Lucy Flores could all make strong additions.
2. Donald Trump supporters: Although the Times has numerous conservative columnists, none of them were open partisans of President Trump — whose approval ratings among Republican voters remains high. The Times could fix this by hiring some of the more thoughtful Trump backers, or at least writers who have documented his appeal. For instance, there is Dilbert creator Scott Adams, who admires Trump’s powers of persuasion and correctly predicted that he would be elected. It could also hire the Washington Examiner’s Saleno Zito, who has crisscrossed the country talking to Trump’s supporters, and who has done more than most journalists to document his appeal to the grassroots.
3. Young people: There seems to be a rule that a newspapers’ op-ed pages can’t include anyone under 40, even as editors lament that no young people read them. The Times could break real ground by hiring talented millennial writers like the Washington Post’s Elizabeth Bruenig or Demos’s Sean McElwee. The Times could also go even younger, including the voices of Americans who are rarely heard: high-schoolers. They could hire a regular teenage columnist, or even have students across the country share a regular column — rotating who is chosen to write by racial, gender, class, and other demographics.
4. Arab and Muslim Americans: The Middle East and Islam are frequent topics of New York Times columns, but the paper employs zero Arab or Muslim regular op-ed columnists to write these pieces. This is particularly galling in the face of the Stephens hire, whose reductive writing about the Middle East includes diatribes about the “disease of the Arab mind” and a “Palestinian blood fetish.” It could fix this by employing, for instance, prolific religion professor Reza Aslan or activist Linda Sarsour.
5. Opponents of militarism: The NYT op-ed page is home to Thomas Friedman, who once proudly described the message of the Iraq war as the following: “Well, suck. on. this. That…was what this war was about. We coulda hit Saudi Arabia….We coulda hit Pakistan. We hit Iraq because we could.” The paper’s op-ed pages lack skeptics of military intervention, but the Times could rectify that by hiring any number of talented writers: The American Conservative’s Daniel Larison, Foreign Policy’s Stephen Walt, or the Council on Foreign Relations’ Micah Zenko would all be good picks.
6. Scientists and environmentalists: If the Times thinks it’s a good idea to hire someone who questions climate science, it might be a good idea to hire someone who actually studies and practices it to balance him out. They could hire, for instance, leading climatologist James Hansen or environmental lawyer Erin Brockovich.
So let’s take the Times at its word. They want a broader range of opinions on their op-ed page, but can’t seem to make much progress on their own. So let’s send them these suggestions — or any other ideas to truly open the windows there and let in some fresh air.
Top photo: Pedestrians walk by the outside of the The New York Times building in New York City on June 30, 2016.
great suggestion but it will never happen because the NYT are a corporate establishment friendly gatekeeper ”mainstream’ paper that isn’t in the business of overthrowing let alone reforming the broken system of capitalism, white supremacy, and climate wrecking disaster capitalism with all that racial/economic apartheid. That’s why we need independent media and more socialist/progressive/green media that also isn’t afraid to want to break apart the system. i.e. can we stop trying to reform the Democrats and have voices like Jill Stein, Ralph Nader, Cheri Honkala, Maragret Flowers, Rocky Anderson, David Edwards and David Cromwell of http://www.medialens.org, Mark Curtis british historian, John Pilger, Rania Khalek, Jimmy Dore, Debbie the Sane Progressive, Medea Benjamin, Robert Eggington of the Dumbartung Aboriginal Corporation, Tara Houska, Winona LaDuke, Ward Churchill, can they lead the resistance as opposed to us making due with Clinton friendly folks or people who though want to change the world think revolution with Russia conspiracy theories and reforming the Demcrats is the way to go when its insane. #jussayin lol
Good ideas. But the NYT readers would go ballistic. They want it only one way. And you can’t alienate your customers.
So nothing will change.
Bravo! You don’t balance emptiness with an even greater vacuum of ideas.
Start with the new ideas and find the people behind them, then let them rip.
Asking the readership of the NYT how to spin the editorials at the NYT is like asking 5 year olds if they like to watch Teletubbies and, if so, would they like to watch more Teletubbies. The same could be said of The Intercept as well.
Why are you here, ostensibly reading and commenting then?
Thanks for being nonsensical and thus proving your own point.
Here’s a paradox for you. Half the country makes less than $50K a year. Alas, if you hired one to write NYT op-eds, they’d probably cease to qualify.
It is confirmed. Intercept does not rock boat. Jilani is either trolling the Times or recommending Trump supporters, conservatives, people in the ruling CFR and deceptive religious types like Azlan in his attempt to ‘broaden’ it. None of that will ‘broaden’ the Times, as the Times is already ‘there’ in its own way.
NYT is the past. TYT is the future.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRzDBqv8eJM
Disabled people. How come disabled people are always left out of those lists when they represent 20% of the population? Disabled people who identify as disabled and write about disabilities.
Aside from a few crumbs of attention that the Times periodically throws at the community, the paper has been mostly hostile to people with disabilities (as have many other corporate media)
Would it make sense to have several columnists that edit for one another and also edit for outsiders writing op-eds on disability topics? I’m trying to think of a way to create generative content diversity that doesn’t quickly reduce to THE one voice writing the daily boiler-plate story.
NYT will NOT hire “pro Bernie” columnist. he is “socialist”, may even be “commie” too…. LOL…but seriously, NYT is just Democrat Party propaganda machine. same like Russia’s RT, China’s CCTV. i am not saying New York Times, CCTV, RT do not provide useful information, in fact they DO. however, i am saying we should know where they come from.
We know that Bernie–who now parties in a Unity Tour with DNC chairman Tom Perez, and who wholeheartedly, sincerely endorsed HRC for president, and who was demonstrated in a new NYT bestseller to have collaborated with the Hillary camp to conceal his own supporters’ protests on the convention hall floor from broadcast, and who debated in DNC primaries–is a Democrat.
1-6Hire journalists.
I would love to hear the point of view of some Russian journalists. Are there any left Stan?
I honestly do not know. I have never lived in Russia and do not know the language. But I am grateful to have access to a trustworthy domain expert such as youself.
I do know your country, especially the extremist right side of it, having been born in Texas. I do know its language (especially your dialect), and I read the NYT almost every day from my late teenage years into my forties. As one of the NYT’s former punters — and domain experts, by journalistic standards in the US — my credible opinion is The Gray Thing is a piece shit. Same is true for WaPo, CNN, Fox, and any other stenography organ people like you wish everyone would believe in.
I also worked at BBC News from mid 2002 to the end of 2005, and witnessed first hand the spectacle of sweaty palmed, pretty presenters playing force multiplier in March 2003, then drawing lines under Dr. Kelley’s erhm… suicide. Didn’t see any journalists there either. Can’t fault me for not making an effort to find them. I really did try.
Anyway, I thought you guys were supposed to be smart, and armed with the Greatest Bullshit In The World. What happened? Where did your SoftPower go? And why do you keep trying to hang Russian flags around my neck? I detest flags, and yours is particularly odious — over used toilet paper if you ask me, and a few billion others.
Apologies for not displaying suficient deference, but the onus is on you to earn that.
Seems the board at the Times is stuck, old and afraid of getting older and their idealistic visions of yesterday will allow no others of thought outside of their realm to have any note worthy progressive and different thinking for their own future. Perhaps another format or media outlet is needed here for these people of the future.
Oh yes when they lead the 5/7/17 Sunday Times editorial page with Clinton and Trump still fighting 6 months later as an item of news worthy Opinion, something is wrong Andrew Rosenthal
True article about the Times,personally have feel the exact same way about them and the editorial pages.
Old school and no new schools with different opinions because it would disrupt the future for the past that they dearly hold onto. It’s about them for them.
But if one has been truly reading the Times ,you are telling us nothing new.
Excellent do-over! I left some unhappy comments at the article you cite, which was a classic example of the sort of failed “identity politics” that led to Trump’s election. But this article makes a productive effort to consider authors as THINKERS, not racial objects … even if it does root for a token Arab/Muslim, at least this puts it in a context of the knowledge they have rather than making it a purely ethnic count. So I say good job overall.
Too bad Jilani’s missing a key point. The NYT is just like lots of other media that’s turning right wing. Why?:
They’re convinced that if they’re perceived as right wing by Trump and the White House, they’ll gain access instead of being trashed all the time.
Right wing content makes shitloads of money. If it doesn’t, why are so many media companies right wing?
The Times would hire Cornel West or Michelle Alexander? No chance in hell. Remember, to many powerful media people West is a goddamn socialist. It’s not illegal to be a socialist. But it’s still used as an insult. The DNC wants nothing to do with him. Why then would the NYT?
They’ll hire high school writers? I seriously doubt that.
All the Times cares about is profit. Therefore, you’re being delusional.
If the Times was turning right wing, it would buy columns from Roger Stone or Pamela Geller or Pat Buchanan or Joyce Riley or Dana Perino or Janine Turner.
There’s no hint of NYT turning anything other than the regurgitation of its own progressive leftist spittle.
“…….They’re convinced that if they’re perceived as right wing by Trump and the White House, they’ll gain access instead of being trashed all the time……”
Nah.
Put down the pipe
I’m reasonably sure Jilani isn’t missing your correct point. He’s simply setting forth the hows and whys of why The Times is not, in fact, in pursuit of ideological diversity. That’s a related but separate matter.
The Times pundits have been “liberal” on so-called social issues for decades, but overwhelmingly not on economics, war or national security. Unless, to the extent, that neoliberals now are definitionally rightwing in those areas. Either way, it’s been rightwing for some time, and is continuing to drift further there.
Just for a bit of historical clarity, when I first moved to the NE USA and began reading The Times in 2009, I was shocked at the lack of articles about women’s issues. This was a lack of cis, straight, white women’s issues, mind you, never mind any other kind of woman. I don’t know what happened, but now there seems to be some effort in this direction. It’s not always a thoughtful or helpful effort, but to say that The Times has always been liberal on social issues is not entirely accurate. And they still struggle with parity in their newsroom staff.
NYT “turning right wing”?
All NYT op-eds could be written by an artificial intelligence platform trained on previous NYT op-eds, saving them lots of money. It’s like reading State Department press releases – you basically know what they’re going to say beforehand. Regurgitated boilerplate propaganda. “Humanitarian values inform our foreign policy decisions,” for example.
Straight to the kitty litter box. At least before the digital era, when the paper was more useful.
LOL
didnt know NYT had gotten that bad
gave up on it many years back
used to think it was gospel
until wallstreet robbed america
until they promoted wmd and dumya
now its just falafal, and i like falafal
Mr. Jilani
Will the Intercept diversify its staff? Here is Glenn Greenwald discussing diversity in opinion with Bill Kelly (“Is Glenn Greenwald the Future of News?”, https://nyti.ms/2pXAbW2):
Glenn wants to hire a real conservative at least according to his definition. Regardless, I am still waiting for the conservative to arrive at the Intercept. In fact, the Intercept just hired Ryan Grim – the former Washington Bureau Chief for the Huffington Post. Hmmm. Is he the “real” conservative? If diversity of opinion is the goal, it seems like the Intercept is the pot calling the kettle black. In fact, if the Intercept had hired Bret Stephens, that really would have been a commitment to diversity of opinion!
Are you stuck in some kind of time warp? Liberal and conservative have no meaning anymore, other than a stereotypical in-the-box discussion of, let’s see – guns, abortions, gay marriage? The issues that really matter – bloated military budget, neoliberal trade policy, global imperial agenda, domestic infrastructure collapse, public health and education disasters, pollution and global warming – basically off the table. Complete loyalty to corporate Wall Street agenda, that’s your establishment liberal-conservative position, that’s the allowable spectrum in American corporate media.
Borg mentality, that’s what it’s called. There’s an acceptable range of positions on the ‘liberal-to-conservative’ spectrum. Anything outside that is to be dismissed. Self-censorship is the route to success. You will be assimilated. But you know this already, don’t you?
“…….The issues that really matter – bloated military budget, neoliberal trade policy, global imperial agenda, domestic infrastructure collapse, public health and education disasters, pollution and global warming – basically off the table…….”
It’s just a pipe dream to think you are going to reverse globalization, but we have discussed that in the past. Neoliberalism is here to stay. You might be able to slow it (temporarily), but our economies become ever more dependent increasing the grip of globalization. The French vote – while complicated – is a realization that the anti-global forces will inevitably be defeated. That includes fundamentalist Islam, the far right and the anti-global extreme left.
And I shouldn’t need to remind you that the Medvedev Doctrine specifically calls for an imperialist agenda in Russia’s near abroad. As the world shrinks, imperialism could become more competitive among the world powers – China, the US and Russia.
Thanks photo
Glenn likely means the sort of conservatives at the outlet where he’s often written, to wit: American Conservative. If Daniel Larison wanted to write here, I’d be very surprised if Glenn wouldn’t be thrilled.
The Intercept does have diversity if opinion. This is obvious in comments, when people like me shriek and complain about multiple of the articles and authors. Take Mackey (please).
You note below that Bret Stephens has been Editor in Chief of the Jerusalem Post. This makes him nothing diverse at all at The Times. Diverse would be hiring the
Executive Director of Electronic Intifada, Ali Abunimah. That hire for the pundit page– or anyone remotely similar — will not happen at The Times in my lifetime.
The Israel Lobby would never permit it.
Well Mona, of course there is some diversity of opinion, but mostly liberal, far left (anti-war), but there is no diversity of thought like the recent column by the moderate conservative, Ross Douthat, at the NYT (The European Crisis https://nyti.ms/2qxpUxH). Greenwald has an incredible ability to think outside the box. However, just for the fact that Greenwald eliminates the possibility of hiring David Brooks strongly indicates that he opposes diversity of opinion. Brooks is an extremely intelligent, moderately conservative Republican.
This is both gag-inducing and fucking funny:
Get back to me when the NYT hires a pundit like Abunimah, Max Blumenthal, or rehires Chris Hedges. It’ ain’t gonna happen — cuz Bret Stephens, Douthat and Brooks are squarely within the narrow parameters of respectable, establishment opinion. Nothing else gets in, certainly not as staff.
The value of this site is the extent to which it provides a high profile platform for the diversity not found at The Times. (And the extent to which it reflects and offers what can commonly be found there, this site is less valuable — and even objectionable.)
“……This is both gag-inducing and fucking funny…….Get back to me when the NYT hires a pundit like Abunimah, Max Blumenthal, or rehires Chris Hedges. It’ ain’t gonna happen — cuz Bret Stephens, Douthat and Brooks are squarely within the narrow parameters of respectable, establishment opinion. Nothing else gets in, certainly not as staff……”
Isn’t that classic whataboutery? What does that have to do with diversity of opinion at the Intercept? Jilani can complain all he wants about the lack of diversity in the regular staff at the NYT, but he is living in a glass house.
At least The New York Times includes a lot of op ed contributors with a diverse background and opinions. Here is an op ed in the New York Times by Marwan Barghouti, April 16, 2017 (“Why We Are on Hunger Strike in Israel’s Prisons” https://nyti.ms/2oR1vot). Certainly, the NYT is pro Israel, but at least they post an opposing viewpoint. When is the last time that an Israeli was allowed (or invited) to post an op ed in the Intercept?
Find me a conservative to hire at the Intercept. Thanks Mona.
No.
I was first sharing my amusement with your notions of David Brooks, and then moving on to alleged diversity of viewpoint at the NYT. The, you know, actual topic of the above piece.
The actual whataboutery — as is so common from you — came from your seminal post about the Intercept, in comments to an article about the NYT. You seem reluctant to move back to the actual topic.
Thanks Mona.
Mr. Jilani
“………But hiring another prominent writer whose ideology hems close to that of the nation’s elites — in this case, fossil fuel corporations who are polluting the world and advocates of Western military might — is hardly adding intellectual diversity to the pages of the Times……”
Come on, Mr. Jilani. You are beating around the bush. Here is your real objection which is far more succinct than what you wrote in your column: Stephens is a neoconservative, pro-Israel, foreign policy hawk. He is also the former Editor in Chief of the Jerusalem Post – a conservative Israeli media outlet. There, isn’t that much more clearly expressed?
I think the NYT should have musings about the weather.
That would be consistent with their mission, apparently.
yep, the NYT needs to get even more people in the child-murdering, fascist american boat.
boy the inteercept gets more stupid – and corrupt – by the day.
Excellent idea.
Bring back Chris Hedges, somebody you fired for telling the truth about the invasion of Iraq and who was proved right in every detail about what would happen (unlike any of the mideast correspondents you kept on). Naturally, re-employing Hedges would mean your readers being exposed to unvarnished truths about the corporate coup d’etat at home and US empire overseas… so, probably not.
I wonder if the NYT will re-hire Chris Hedges to implement their new found desire for diversity of opinion.
Beat me to it, sire!
7: Third Party backers.
The Democrat Establishment, in all of its doublespeaking McCarthyist infamy, continues to attack the very essence of democratic elections by trying to intimidate or otherwise scare supporters of third parties into supporting Democrat candidates. Yet there are nearly no major/”mainstream” journalists who have come out in support of third parties’ right to exist and participate in the electoral process same as the Democrats and Republicans (Glenn Greenwald might have been the only major journalist who’s defended a third party candidate, Jill Stein, against the Dems’ undemocratic assaults).
Given that repeated Gallup polls have shown near-majority or majority public support for the idea of third parties, there needs to be more such support in editorial staff. Maybe someone here at The Intercept could consider pointing this out if they write another article like the one above.
I would certainly recommend Matt Taibbi or Marcy Wheeler to their roster. I have been following Emptywheel for quite some time and Ms. Wheeler deserves wider exposure. But I suppose Matt and Marcy are simply not in the NYTs wheelhouse.
“One way to make your supposedly-serious article title sound like clickbait garbage”
“Number 1 will SHOCK you!”
What? There’s nothing “shocking” about Jilani’s point #1. Granted, it’s improbable that a neoliberal, establishment outlet like The Times would add many such individuals — Bernie Sanders supporters — to their roster. But they should, if diversity of viewpoint were what they are after.
Michelle Alexander would certainly be a good choice. Although I’m not certain she should be identified as a Sanders “supporter.” As I recall, she didn’t endorse him, but rather she cogently set forth why Hillary Clinton was unworthy of African-American votes.
@droug
Your bringing up Clarence Thomas made me realize he’s a very good example of why identity can be a very useful metric for creating adequate diversity of viewpoint. Those of sufficient age will recall the Senate hearings about the Anita Hill allegations of Thomas’s alleged sexual harassment.
This was an ugly public spectacle, one that Thomas referred to as a “high tech lynching.” There’s a reason an African-American male wold use that particular metaphor.
I frankly was not sympathetic to the Hill supporters, and do not think that even if all she said was true, that it merited that circus or constituted a proper reason to keep Thomas off the High Court (there were reasons, just not that one). Men engaging in sexual banter in the workplace — especially back then — does not necessarily come from an intention to harass; men and women can experience these things differently.
More than once I’ve found myself explaining to male co-workers that their crude talk and dirty jokes can be unpleasant and even threatening to women; that behavior may not have been such to me, because in these instances the men involved were friends and I understood their perspective and intentions.
But what they were doing was dangerous, something that Human Resources would have been appalled by. They didn’t get it until I intervened. My gender was entirely relevant to this dynamic — I got it, they didn’t. Therefore I was positioned to alert them to why they had to discontinue that behavior.
Identity can be used wrongly as a rallying cry. It isn’t always proper or sufficient for comprehending certain issues. But rather often it is. Which is partially why what Jilani argues above is correct.
The NY Times has shareholders whose economic well-being depends on the paper favoring a certain point of view. Diversity of opinion does not further this goal. Diversity of opinion holders, on the other hand, creates the appearance of unanimity and is therefore useful.
Yes. Creating the ILLUSION of diversity of opinion is an art unto itself.
Creating the illusion that a diversity of people all support the same opinion is the art of the NY Times.
Yes. And this was half of Obama’s guiding principles, the other half being cashing out.
this isn’t complicated. let’s say our goal is diversity of size: we want a staff of diverse heights. a 5′ 6″ employee has just retired. women, in general, are shorter than men. do we therefore look to hire a woman, or do we simply take the most (otherwise) qualified 5′ 6″ individual who applies? if we hold the spot open for a woman, it implies that gender diversity is a goal in addition to size diversity
if our only goal is diversity of thought, then it is only necessary to consider each candidate’s public record of expressed thought. the author is using diversity of thought as a pretext to promote diversity of identities
This explains a lot about the NY Times.
No.
He’s not.
You must be unfamiliar with Zaid Jilani’s body of work. He correctly grasps the correlation that often exists between identity and ideological diversity. For reasons illustrated by initial post in this sub-thread, and which your reply does not undermine.
> He correctly grasps the correlation that often exists between identity and ideological diversity.
the entire point of my analogy is to grant the correlation. ‘women, in general, are shorter than men.’
you should just admit that, for people like you and jilani, diversity of identities is a goal apart from diversity of thought. the latter can be achieved without any consideration of the former
Excuse you. You are not entitled to tell me what it is that I think. My views are as I’ve stated them.
No. It can’t.
To know and understand the issues and facts particular to X, one must listen to some X. While there may be some non-X who are able and willing to speak to the concerns of X, it is very likely that they themselves got their understanding in the first instance from listening to an X or two.
> To know and understand the issues and facts particular to X, one must listen to some X.
obviously. that’s the one extremely narrow exception. if we were looking for someone to write mostly about what it’s like to be a woman, we would need to hire a woman. if the scotus ruled on nothing but cases that directly affect latinos, we should definitely have at least one – and maybe nine – latinos on the bench. but if we’re looking for a liberal jurist, there is absolutely no need to consider the gender or race or ethnicity or religion of the candidates. same goes for a conservative opinion columnist. in these cases, we don’t need to consider correlations between identities and opinions; all we need to do is look at the previously expressed opinions of each individual candidate. if we go further and consider the identities of the candidates, it can only be because we wish to (also) select on that basis
This reality is neither narrow nor an exception. In our increasingly homogeneous society, a society in which some voices have historically been silenced and/or marginalized, it is critical to now hear these voices. Critical in many areas that impact all manner of policy, domestic and foreign.
There’s nothing “narrow” about that. It’s a very broadly important necessity.
I hate it when I do shit like that. I meant “heterogeneous society.”
Mona, I recall the hearings in 1991, watched/listened to most of it and we actually discussed the proceedings in a college class at the time.
Let’s be a bit more accurate here – Clarence Thomas said, “This is just a high-tech lynching…of an uppity nigger.” You left that last part out, which spoke more to Thomas’ attempt to turn the S.C. selection process in his case into not about gender bias or his sexual harassment of Anita Hill – but about race – in one fell swoop. He knew it would have shock value and it accomplished just what it was intended for.
I completely disagree with your analysis — and I was first year law student at the time, and we certainly discussed it as well. I agree with much of this — tho not all.
Unless I missed it, I didn’t see a single reference in that article’s page to Thomas’ “high-tech lynching of an uppity nigger” statement. It was mostly supposedly the Dems wanting to oppose him on his anti-Affirmative Action stance, which would be contrary to his apparent belief in regressive racism in the country – if he thought he was the “uppity nigger” being discriminated against then why would he oppose AA? Nor does the article say much about your assertion on the Anita Hill issue.
It’s obfuscation and disingenuous revision of history as far as I’m concerned.
It’s Salena Zito, not Saleno.
Great article, I hope readers will share it far and wide.
If he would deign to accept, The Intercept’s own Glenn Greenwald would cover several of those philosophical blocks, assuming there aren’t contractual or conflict of interest issues.
I would however recommend skepticism of Reza Aslan. The man is an opportunistic con who has found a successful niche as an acceptable apologist. Linda Sarsour is a far better candidate not only for issues relating to Muslim representation and civil rights in America, but was an active and skilled advocate of Bernie during the primary.
NYT will not admit far right views onto its comments pages. Pre-mod is there to prevent contrasting opinion before it even appears in print. That’s fear, apprehension that it doesn’t have the arguments to carry a debate.
It is an echo chamber filled with progressive liberals whose egos aren’t fulfilled unless their portraits appear next to their names, peering over their eyeglasses on lanyards into the camera.
No. The NYT doesn’t “fear” the Alex Jones cohort. They fear being regarded as a cesspool of inanity. More so than most, the NYT cares about appearances.
They could hire Chris Hedges back.
The role of the NY Times is to eliminate diversity of thought. Herding cats doesn’t work very well.
The NY Times’ problem is that others have honed in on their territory and are breaking off pieces of the herd. Adding diversity will just make it easier for others to abscond with sizable chunks of their readership. They must therefore eliminate any hint of diversity and hope to hang onto a sizable portion of the main herd. Otherwise, the New York Times becomes irrelevant (if it isn’t so already).
The NYT is still a very good source of news.
‘diversity of thought’ does not translate to ‘representative of america’. if we’re looking for the latter, we select people based on the body of their work, without regard to personal characteristics. the two are conflated by those who are really more interested in diversity of ‘identities’ than viewpoints
1. Bernie Sanders Backers
2. Donald Trump Supporters
3. Young People4. Arab and Muslim Americans5. Opponents of Militarism
6.
Scientists andEnvironmentalists“the two are conflated by those who are really more interested in diversity of ‘identities’ than viewpoints.”
If you don’t think identity has a huge impact on viewpoint, you’re not thinking deeply or clearly.
if you know an individual’s race or gender or age, can you predict with certainty their opinion on any particular topic, or even their general worldview? NO. if you believe that blacks think like blacks, or women think like women, then you’re a racist or a sexist. and even in cases where we can predict with a great degree of confidence, there is still no reason to consider personal characteristics if the goal is diversity of thought; it is only necessary to consider each individual applicant’s public record of expressed thought. therefore, if personal characteristics are considered, it is not for the purpose of achieving diversity of thought
There’s a difference between a rigid identitarianism and understanding that identity is also important. Latinas such as Sotomayor on SCOTUS aren’t important for their skin color per se, but rather because being a LatinX is American culture teaches one things useful to know when considering balances of power and reality in deciding cases.
It isn’t an accident that older white males skew deeply conservative, pro-corporation, pro-authority and nationalist. Nor is it coincidental that a black female is more likely to be clear-eyed about struggles of blacks and women. That is, identities do add information necessary to determining just and appropriate polices.
Blacks such as Thomas on SCOTUS aren’t important for their skin color per se, but rather because being a BlackX is American culture teaches one things useful to know when considering balances of power and reality in deciding cases.
Ok, and? Did you know that a small number of Jews supported Adolph Hitler until the Nazis came to put them in camps? Did you know there are nearly always a few nuts in every cohort who run counter to the general rule? (I’m not saying Thomas is a nut; but he identifies in many ways with the system that oppresses black people.)
It remains generally true that identity gives information to people that is useful for determining fair, realistic and just policies.
we’re not talking about public policies. we’re talking about selecting individuals for an organization (such as the nyt) with the goal of diversity of thought
[correction in my original comment: ‘if we’re looking for the former’]
We are, in fact, entirely talking about public policies! The purpose of diversity of thought is to be well-informed about issues of public policy, to promote good public choices.
These go hand-in-glove.
That’s false.
NYT is a joke for idiot liberals. They whine about climate change then show recipes for cow burgers. The cognitive dissonance on that site is unreal. They can rot for all I care.
Its ok, ACd is happening whether you like it or not. WethePeople 35th Constitution word: LIBERTY,LIBERATE, LIBERAL. OLD AND GRUMPY ARE YOU.
By “diversity” they meant diversity within the ranks of billionaires and their lackeys, not among the great unwashed…
It’s kind of amazing that “diversity” within the overton window of corporate media includes Bret Stephens but not Bernie Sanders supporters or anti-war activists.
“: The American Conservative’s Daniel Larison, Foreign Policy’s Stephen Walt, or the Council on Foreign Relations’ Micah Zenko would all be good picks.”
Given only the most mainstream of supposedly anti-militarists might be something the NYT could do but won’t. Let’s go a step further and add some names that truly represent rational thinking that includes a critical stance on US militarism, such as Kathy Kelly, Paul Street, Robert Parry, Ron Urie or Glenn Greenwald.
I mean if you are going to ask for the impossible, make it worth the having.
Couldn’t you come up with any more interesting Muslim names besides a woman that tweets how wonderful Sharia law is or Aslan (he’s actually a creative writing Prof, not religion)?
Even the laziest attempt at nearing accuracy would’ve clarified Aslan’s background for you…..his formal training background in religious studies is extensive.
Nice try. His Phd is in sociology. He has a Masters in creative writing. He is a Professor of creative writing, not religion.
What did I say that was not accurate?
Aslan holds multiple degrees including degrees in theology.
Aslan’s degrees include a Bachelor of Arts in Religious Studies from Santa Clara University (Major focus: New Testament; Minor: Greek), a Master of Theological Studies from Harvard University (Major focus: History of Religions), a PhD in the Sociology of Religions from the University of California, Santa Barbara, and a Master of Fine Arts from the University of Iowa, where he was named the Truman Capote Fellow in Fiction
Your characterization of Bret Stephens is beyond silly. After your first article denouncing him, I went and read more of his stuff. He is a very insightful, well-reasoned guy. That he is not a fan of Militant Islam puts him in the same boat as the majority of Americans (and the majority of Muslims). That he steadfastly rejects AGW alarmism also puts him in the mainstream of the public, but NOT the mainstream of journalists. In other words, he is precisely the kind of diversity– diversity of thought– the NYT needs. Hiring him increases their credibility substantially.
As for your other recommendations in this piece, I agree with all but the notion that the NYT needs more environmentalists. Everyone there (Stephens excepted) already attends daily mass at the church of environmentalism. No need for more of the same.
Since many people will immediately boil with righteous indignation that I dare to question the Lord Environment Almighty… But they have never once bothered to seek out a dissenting view on AGW alarmism… Here is your opportunity to read a bit of reason from a real live scientist who has the courage to stand up to the Enviro Inquisition and speak truth to power(fully well-funded, brain-washed idiots): http://merionwest.com/2017/04/25/richard-lindzen-thoughts-on-the-public-discourse-over-climate-change/
His is a mediocre mind. Scientists began canceling their subscriptions in droves after his dumb piece on climate change. Not that Stephens’ column was especially dangerous to truth; it was a pile of poorly reasoned bilge.
Anyway, Jilani’s argument about what real intellectual diversity would look like is quite sound, and it isn’t Bret Stephens. Further, from whatever ideological perspective the writer is drawn, the choice for “the paper of record” should be above mediocre, which is all they got in Stephens.
Publishing some select nuggets from Mr. Greenwald such as this would be welcome. Exploding heads may ensue.
https://theintercept.com/2017/05/02/trumps-support-and-praise-of-despots-is-central-to-the-u-s-tradition-not-a-deviation-from-it/
Here is an article that looks at one of the major difficulties facing the New York Times:
http://viableopposition.blogspot.ca/2017/02/americas-print-media-and-its.html
It looks like the mainstream media will find it increasingly difficult to increase profitability.
Pretty good article, Mr. Jilani. I’m sure that the NYT will be receptive to all these suggestions toward diversifying their opinion-shaping stable of dead horses. /s/
One suggested correction:
“Hems” should read “hews”.
+100.
As someone who has tried to place content that critiques our wars in the Times, I can tell you that they are entirely not interested. Their two prongs seem to be “if it bleeds, it leads” and adulation of servicemen.
How about this, why not try writing articles relevant to your areas of expertise rather than the usual social justice warrior advice, if you don’t like what NYT says or does…don’t read it
If you don’t like what Zaid writes. Don’t read it. This could go on forever. Every single thing written, some genius can scratch his head and say hey, you know what? If you don’t like it, don’t read it. Civilization will peak then, all will find themselves in continuous wonder in contemplation of our deepest truth, if you don’t like it, don’t read it.
So on one hand your saying i cant say if you dont like it dont read it? but you finish with telling me not to read it…ok lol
Civilization will peak then- this quote is why people from outside the left loath people of the elite left.
FYI: In my country i would be considered “left wing”