Adventures with the New York Times
Why I canceled my subscription to the NYT, and why I don't think I should have to 'splain it more than once.
Just before I sat down at my desk to write this column I began working my way through the lengthy and byzantine process required to cancel my ages-old subscription to the New York Times. I'll get to the “why” shortly, but the “how” is worthy of discussion all by itself.
For reasons beyond me, given the age of digital wizardry in which we live, it's somehow not possible to just hit a “cancel” button on the Times app or website with perhaps a comment or two about why you are leaving. They require closure. You have to connect with one of their “advocates” to discuss the matter.
It turns out that this step takes quite a while and involves far more aggravation than it should. Being currently in the middle of the process, I doubt that anyone regrets the decision to pull the plug by the time one jumps through all of the hoops.
Now to the “why.” The Times has abandoned its long-standing commitment to present diverse views in its op-ed section because airing some of these views, and I'm quoting Times staffers, “puts Black @NYTimes staff in danger.”
I wonder what war correspondents — who are frequently in actual, real physical danger — think about that? Or the spate of cops who've been shot in the past few weeks?
Those of you who follow current events are no doubt aware of the controversies that have rocked newspapers all over the country for the past few weeks in the wake of Black Lives Matter protests. At the Times, it was the forced resignation of op-ed editor James Bennet and demotion of Jim Dao, the deputy editorial page editor in charge of op-eds, over a guest opinion piece by Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Arkansas, titled "Send In the Troops."
I am no fan of Sen. Cotton. I think that he's a far-right firebrand and Trump sycophant who's generally more interested in lobbing grenades than in the difficult work of governing a large and diverse nation. But his editorial, despite the headline (which I would venture was as far as the majority of the piece's critics got) was far from radical. I don't agree with much of what's in the piece, but it would be difficult (impossible, actually, if you believe in the majority of recent polling) to argue that he was not stating an opinion widely shared among many Americans.
The Times, as it turns out, is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to all of this. Similar controversies have cropped up at the Philadelphia Inquirer, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the Intercept, Vox and Variety. At most all of these publications, heads have rolled over not being “woke” enough during the current period of unrest.
The best recent reporting I've read on all of this is from Matt Taibbi in a piece called "The American Press Is Destroying Itself." I cannot recommend this piece to you highly enough. It's well-worth a few minutes of your life.
I don't care if Sen. Cotton was wrong or right in his Times op-ed. He's a sitting United States senator and what he has to say on a matter of national interest is relevant — whether I agree with it or not. In fact, especially if we disagree because it makes it more important to know why. The thoughts of a U.S. senator on a matter of such gravity is more relevant than what I or any opinion columnist has to say and what any Times staffer thinks about it. Perhaps a Zoom civics class would be helpful for a Times retreat.
When a publication like the Times — which harps ad nauseam about the importance of diversity — fires and demotes editors for doing their job, and then discovers a half-dozen reverse gears to back out of an internally unpopular opinion piece by a major figure with legitimate standing because it makes the staff feel “uncomfortable,” well, they lost me. I don't read stuff produced by intellectual wimps any more than I have to.
And then only for free.
It's now beyond evident that diversity, to a critical mass of Times staffers, means all liberal points of view and some conservative points of view as long as they don't hurt their feelings or make them think unpleasant thoughts.
One of the most ridiculous defenses of the Times debacle was that space in the Times is such a valuable commodity that it must be meted out carefully. I'm trying my best to reconcile that with a recent piece of several thousand words, "The Hardest Part of Having a Nonbinary Kid Is Other People." That allocation of “valuable” print space during a pandemic, in an election year and with the country in turmoil might glue them in their seats in ZIP code 10018, but not in too many other places, I think.
I'll miss the excellent reporting and in-depth pieces that I enjoyed with the news portion of the Times. That's a fact. But I'll not miss it enough to spend money every month to support the whiners in the Times house.
For what it's worth, it's been 90 minutes and I'm still waiting to speak with an “advocate.” It appears that they can't even handle subscriptions right these days.