like, why would you publish this on the fourth of fucking july, and why wouldn’t you do even a single cursory search to see if he actually had voted recently
I know this is a rhetorical question but the answer is because they legitimately want donald trump to be the next president and usher in a one-party autocracy for the rest of their lives because they think covering it will be fun for them
That and trump will most definitely do political genocide and send dissenters and journalists to a painful death or labor camp before painful death, so they sense it and are going to instead start championing the guy with the gun pointed at their head. They are cowards plain and simple
having money is fun, going to happy hours with your GOP operative buddies and feeling like you're in the room where it happens is fun, feeling like one of the main characters of history is fun
clarence thomas has had a very rich and fulfilling lifestyle because his actual benefactors have rewarded him for writing the things that they want him to, now extrapolate this to other people who write for a living
I don't think it's that deep. NYT is known for having a somewhat educated reader base so readers should be intelligent enough to not let a simple news article change their decision to vote
people intuitively understand that advertising exists as a multi-billion dollar industry because repeated and broad exposure to ideas influences people's behavior, but when it comes to the media suddenly it's "this doesn't count as bad because it doesn't change anyone's behavior entirely on its own"
Differentiating views should be censored just because *some* people are too ignorant? Should we lower the bar on all literature too just because we're scared the ppl who can't think for themselves might act it out? Sounds like a dystopian way of gatekeeping information and shadow-banning free speech
it's not "censorship" to say that newspapers should exercise socially responsible editorial judgment in their coverage
by the standard you've set here, articles about how donald trump would be bad are being censored by the media because they aren't getting published but you're not mad about that
Clickbait just like the shit Bill Maher was allowed to write. Ragefarming has become incredibly common with major publications in the last couple of years.
And just helping Trump win in their minds would help them publish even more ragefarm shit. I think they are wrong though. Gotta stop reposting the worst shit that gets published by them.
We all know why and unfortunately we’re all incentivizing it further (this is not a scold I am frustrated that our society incentivizes bad faith trolling so heads they win tails we lose)
maybe it's just me, but i would be immediately skeptical of someone who claims it's okay that he doesn't give enough of a shit to vote, but had bothered to write and *submit to the NYT* a piece suggesting others follow suit. like, it seems pretty inherent that the guy does give a shit.
I have been a pretty staunch believer that there are good journalists at the Times, and the journalism industry is not ideal for giving up a job, especially at a flagship paper, but this is a terrible organization and if you work there you get lumped in with the rest of the turds in the punch bowel.
George Carlin had a bit that centered on giving up political hope. I wish he was more wrong. Truth is, maybe the only hope you have is to be able to live with yourself as we all learn the terrible lessons of catastrophe is to show up and dissent in the booth.
