WSJ: We won’t wilt under cancel-culture pressure
-
wrote on 24 Jul 2020, 14:12 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in WSJ: We won’t wilt under cancel-culture pressure:
"Most Journal reporters attempt to cover the news fairly and down the middle, and our opinion pages offer an alternative to the uniform progressive views that dominate nearly all of today’s media . . . As long as our proprietors allow us the privilege to do so, the opinion pages will continue to publish contributors who speak their minds within the tradition of vigorous, reasoned discourse."
I know what I want for Christmas.
-
wrote on 24 Jul 2020, 14:31 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in WSJ: We won’t wilt under cancel-culture pressure:
Their anxieties aren’t our responsibility in any case.
IOW, "Fuck off, snowflakes."
-
wrote on 24 Jul 2020, 15:33 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in WSJ: We won’t wilt under cancel-culture pressure:
which are more important than ever in what is a culture of growing progressive conformity and intolerance
Good way to phrase it!
-
wrote on 24 Jul 2020, 15:33 last edited by
I'm not going to say the WSJ does not have bias. It does.
But is fairer than the NYT. Much fairer.
-
wrote on 24 Jul 2020, 16:26 last edited by
That's incredibly encouraging to hear.
-
That’s the sub headline of this piece by the editorial board in the WSJ today:
"We’ve been gratified this week by the outpouring of support from readers after some 280 of our Wall Street Journal colleagues signed (and someone leaked) a letter to our publisher criticising the opinion pages. But the support has often been mixed with concern that perhaps the letter will cause us to change our principles and content. On that point, reassurance is in order.
In the spirit of collegiality, we won’t respond in kind to the letter signers. Their anxieties aren’t our responsibility in any case. The signers report to the News editors or other parts of the business, and the News and Opinion departments operate with separate staffs and editors. Both report to Publisher Almar Latour. This separation allows us to pursue stories and inform readers with independent judgment.
It was probably inevitable that the wave of progressive cancel culture would arrive at the Journal, as it has at nearly every other cultural, business, academic and journalistic institution. But we are not the New York Times. Most Journal reporters attempt to cover the news fairly and down the middle, and our opinion pages offer an alternative to the uniform progressive views that dominate nearly all of today’s media.
As long as our proprietors allow us the privilege to do so, the opinion pages will continue to publish contributors who speak their minds within the tradition of vigorous, reasoned discourse. And these columns will continue to promote the principles of free people and free markets, which are more important than ever in what is a culture of growing progressive conformity and intolerance."
wrote on 24 Jul 2020, 16:50 last edited by@jon-nyc said in WSJ: We won’t wilt under cancel-culture pressure:
It was probably inevitable that the wave of progressive cancel culture would arrive at the Journal, as it has at nearly every other cultural, business, academic and journalistic institution. But we are not the New York Times. Most Journal reporters attempt to cover the news fairly and down the middle, and our opinion pages offer an alternative to the uniform progressive views that dominate nearly all of today’s media.
-
wrote on 24 Jul 2020, 17:04 last edited by
Can we see the leaked letter?
-
wrote on 24 Jul 2020, 17:11 last edited by
yes, google it
-
wrote on 24 Jul 2020, 17:13 last edited by
-
wrote on 24 Jul 2020, 17:33 last edited by
What a boring letter.
-
wrote on 24 Jul 2020, 17:49 last edited by
@jon-nyc said in WSJ: We won’t wilt under cancel-culture pressure:
I think it’s a fair letter as long as the same discipline is applied across the board. For example how much nonsense has the NYT reported that has been discussed here that is never retracted?
-
wrote on 24 Jul 2020, 18:03 last edited by
I wonder what the social dynamics of the signatories were. If the signatures were public and the set of people asked to sign was also public, there must have been enormous pressure to sign.