For some reason, I find the finger snapping to be the most sinister aspect of the whole story. Of course that's not the real injustice here, but it's such a concrete detail illustrating the mob mentality of the staffers.
I feel like I may be about to step in it, but there's some gray between "this didn't happen at all" and "this happened exactly as he said it did."
Did he say the thing about Chik-fil-A? It seems pretty certain that he did. Was there a negative reaction of some kind from the people in the room? It seems pretty certain that there was. Did everyone in the room act the perfect stereotype of a tutting, snapping smoothbrain? ...Maybe.
Note that it wouldn't make Rubenstein a "liar" if only a few people snapped rather than the implied consensus majority, or if those weren't the exact words the HR person used. It also wouldn't make him a "liar" if the bit about the $19 sandwich is more illustrative than real. This is an event that happened years ago, and none of these proposed inaccuracies, even if true, even if intentionally so, would make him a "liar" or necessitate a correction, since they aren't really provable one way or the other.
(It also wouldn't make him a "liar" if he said the Chik-fil-A thing fully knowing it would irk people.. It would irk me - I might've sarcastically said "Yeah, isn't fast food the greatest?")
Anyway...as ever...be skeptical of anything too perfect. If everyone at the NYT sucks, there's a strong chance that this guy - who they hired while sucking, do recall - probably kind of sucks too. The normal, vaguely irritating, vaguely exaggerating kind of suck, not the insitution-bonfiring suck of his senior colleagues, perhaps, but still.
I am sure they all did not synchronously erupt in snapping. However, knowing this crowd (and I do), there is almost no chance that some, seeing their peers snapping their fingers, would not join in. Silence is violence.
Speaking frankly, were I forced to be in such a session, I would've zoned out five minutes in. If I heard people randomly snapping, there's a good chance I'd do it too, on the ol' "look like I'm paying attention" autopilot mode. Heck I would probably have assumed they were all snapping because they like chicken sandwiches.
I don't at all mean to diminish Rubenstein's serious mistreatment w.r.t. the Cotton piece, nor do I mean to diminish the absolute insanity of current NYT journalists trying to discredit him over the precise factuality of a chicken sandwich anecdote, of all things.
Really, even if he made the whole thing up, it wouldn't matter a single bit. It's in fact a piercing indictment of those NYT folks that they would try to make "a thing" out of this at all. It's beyond indictment to conviction now that they've been caught BSing even about this stupid, stupid, stupid "thing" they tried their own best to gin up.
One of the features of this sort of behavior is that it only takes a few people to snap their fingers to signal to the group that a behavior is going to be punished, and that's sufficient to intimidate everyone else. So maybe some people don't care about Chick-Fil-A, and some people might even actually like their sandwiches, but once they hear the finger snaps then they back off. This is a common occurrence -- people who are shunned often report that colleagues come to them privately to agree with their position, but they won't take a public stand in fear of being attacked themselves. I think that's what so creepy about the finger snaps: it's a subtle gesture, but it's nonetheless expresses great malevolence. This is the sort of thing that Tony Soprano would be into.
Having said that, it's remarkable how Chick-Fil-A has been become right-coded in the culture wars, and it's something that drives progressives nuts. Occasionally someone will decide to make a public protest, march into a CFA and announce that they're gay or queer, and the usual response is, "Do you want any special sauces with your order?" I rarely go to them, just because I generally don't eat fast food, but whenever I have they consistently seem to be well-run, positive environments, and they hire out a lot of high-schoolers, so it's a great way to get started in the workforce. They also sponsor a lot of scholarships for their workers. I'm happy to patronize the institution just to support the kids. And of course, the Spicy Chicken Deluxe sandwich is very tasty; that's another reason. (The milkshakes are good too).
>Having said that, it's remarkable how Chick-Fil-A has been become right-coded in the culture wars
The fronts have multiplied. There's now a solid contingent that holds attacks on Chik-fil-A to be racially problematic because of the restaurant's popularity in communities of color. I've personally never paid them a cent because I don't cotton to the Christian-purity vibe, but I did have a coupon for a free sandwich once. Everyone was exceedingly friendly. The sandwich was...fine. Poor quality pickles & just nothing special. Popeye's is miles better, and their restaurants all play New Orleans jazz...just my onion.
Imagine that the sandwich story was told from another participant’s POV: “I was at a NYT orientation w/ Adam. During the icebreaker, he got a prompt asking his fav sandwich and you know what he said? Some sandwich from CHIK-FIL-A!!! What a homophobe!”
Given that reframing, not only would the current skeptics accept it happened, ppl would be coming forward to corroborate the veracity of the account as well as their subsequent trauma from being exposed to hateful speech
I’d like to acknowledge that I'm writing this Slack message on the traditional territory of the Lenapehoking people and from my parents' pied-à-terre in Manhattan (just until I find my own place in Brooklyn!).
Unfortunately, in the past week, I was subject to an act of anti-LGBTQIA2S+ workplace violence. You would think that the New York Times would recognize its problematic history of platforming white men and be striving to #dobetter, but no. Instead, a week ago they hired a literal white cis able-bodied man from the literally fascist Weekly Standard! My colleagues and I were not warned about this beforehand and were instead forced to participate in an orientation icebreaker activity with this literal colonizer.
As you know, I am a proud non-binary demisexual. So I could hardly believe that when this white man was asked what his favorite sandwich was, he named a menu item from CHICK-FIL-A. A fast food establishment that literally wages genocide against LGBTQIA2S+ people like me.
Thankfully, the facilitator explained to him why what he did was deeply wrong and I did appreciate the allies who snapped their fingers in agreement with the facilitator, but that does not undo or erase the trauma that I experienced that day and the many spoons I have lost forever. The fact that this man, in his whiteness, is allowed to keep his job and propagate this hate has caused untold harm to me and my fellow LGBTQIA2S+ comrades at the Times."
I have little doubt that the Chick-fil-A Incident happened in private because we've all seen very similar incidents happen in public. I'm sure there's a legal term for "part of a pattern."
Absolutely. I know that had I expressed even a vaguely positive opinion of Chick-fil-A a few years ago at the tech company I worked for back then people would have thought less of me, and possibly even complained. I remember well when many of my nerd friends at that company went out of their way to bash JK Rowling a few years ago whenever the topic of Harry Potter even tangentially arose. It would always go the same way too. Someone would make a vague reference to Harry Potter, and people would laugh, and then say something like "but of course, Rowling is a horrible transphobe."
So yeah, I absolutely believe that a group of NYT staffers would call someone out for saying ANYTHING vaguely positive about Chick-fil-A.
There were *protests* at my company in 2017 or so when the on-site corporate catering company we used for lunch (free lunch mind you; this was a well-funded tech startup in the late 'teens, we were all spoiled rotten) had chik-fil-a as one of the possible options.
I'm positive this story happened exactly as stated.
"Someone would make a vague reference to Harry Potter, and people would laugh, and then say something like "but of course, Rowling is a horrible transphobe."
As a big Harry Potter fan, I have to say this makes me very sad.
It was very sad. I remember a few months ago my buddy who runs the video gaming club at that company was telling me about their upcoming vote for "game of the year," and showed the list of candidates. I pointed out that Hogwarts Legacy (the Harry Potter game that came out last February and stirred up some very stupid controversy) wasn't on the list and said it should be included since it was one of the most successful games of the year. He sighed and said "too many people would be angry if I even included that as an option so I'm leaving it off."
The thing Rowling deserves to be criticized for is the scoring in quidditch. 150 points for getting the snitch - along with it ending the game - is way too much.
I can also confidently state, as someone who graduated law school and first moved to NYC in 2019 (circa the time of Rubenstein's hiring), Chick-Fil-A was in the zeitgeist amongst hyper liberal circles (like law firms, but also probably the NYT). I heard forms of the Chick-Fil-A comment myself at work. I get we like to memory hole all of this, but it really wasn't THAT long ago.
But don't take my word for it! Read CNN commenting endlessly in 2019 about Chick-Fil-A
So NHJ can't get basic historical facts right in her reporting, and she can't be bothered to do basic reporting on things happening right under her nose. She's worked there for 10 years but is either oblivious or lying. Maybe someone a little more capable should have her rather illustrious spot then
I can't read the article behind the paywall. You're probably aware, but Issac Bailey is someone else that doesn't seem to believe the sandwich story, which is predictable. He responded to Megan McArdle confirming the story. Someone responded to the thread saying that "Tristan de Cunha is not more isolated than these demands for rigor." I realize this is a twitter drama, but I thought it was relevant. I don't understand why people are spending so much time being skeptical when they could just engage with the article on other issues. NHJ and others seem incapable of steel-manning arguments in a way that makes discourse on politics like trench warfare; nothing advances. It's frustrating.
Ideologues like Bailey and Jones have had 10 years where those tactics have worked. Why have honest engagement when you're side is allowed to capture every institution with cheap rhetoric? I do think things are slowly turning though, and there will be a day when they don't get away with this.
Maybe I'm not aware of other behaviors, but Bailey seems to just be genuinely clueless, and I don't have a theory of mind for that. Jones is just dishonest. I don't know what it would look like to hold Bailey accountable because he seems incapable of seeing the world beyond his ideology. He drives me crazy in a way that Jones doesn't.
I don't understand why so many people who spent the bulk of the twenty-first century saying patronizing Chick-fil-A should be disqualifying for a job in media, particularly at the NYT, would be so eager to disprove an anecdote that unequivocally shows them getting the change they demanded.
One might add that an HR representative of one’s employer implying that one has created a hostile work environment is a per se threat, not merely one colleague making another colleague uncomfortable in a meeting, regardless of whether snapping happens afterwards.
Some threats are also colorful anecdotes, of course.
One might also add that reprimanding an employee at a meeting in front of his peers is an unprofessional act on the part of the HR employee. It was a violation of privacy that cast the employee in a most unfavorable light at a time when he hadn't had time to build trust with fellow employees.
There was nothing about what he said or the context in which he said it that required an immediate public chiding.
If that didn't violate the NYT's own policies and procedures and NY law, it should have.
One thing I really like about CFA is that many of the workers are teenagers, and I think the experience is a great first step for them. Also, the company gives out a lot of scholarships.
What this situation did was made me lose my trust in the NYT.
I actually have had a similar experience. I've had two or three comments on Times' articles removed. They weren't abusive, they weren't ugly, they were simply raising questions about Zionism. They were just "not liked" so someone complained and the NYT deleted them.
But you can say about anything you want to about Trump.
As someone who has voted Democrat for 50 years and considers himself to be a "flaming liberal," I have been disheartened by the actions of the Times. I want to have a truly liberal news source. What Rubenstein experienced is what I have seen in the Times, although on a much smaller scale.
We stopped our subscription to the NYT a year ago.d
That’s interesting you mention comment moderation at the Times. Whenever I have tried to point out how commenters are allowed to traffic in racial stereotypes when describing non-white Trump voters (e.g, of course Latinos vote for Trump because they can’t help but be swayed by a strongman like the leaders of their countries) my comments won’t get published. I know comment moderation on the Times isn’t the same level of scandal as what happened to Rubenstein, but it seems to be part of the same pattern.
I canceled at the time of the Cotton incident. If over half the country agrees with something then it’s an opinion you need to reckon with if you aspire to being the Paper of Record. No matter how distasteful you find the opinion. In fact, if it’s an abhorrent opinion then it’s even *more* important to print the steel man and then take it apart.
Oh yes. I've had several on-topic comments with zero ad hominem or socially objectionable content pulled after being posted and receiving likes, presumably because someone was upset that "the narrative" was being questioned. Whenever I comment pointing out the NYT failure to provide accurate information (the trans issue is rife with opportunities to do so), the comment is invariably not posted. I manage to keep a promotional subscription active by cycling through different emails each year, but will never pay full price.
Same, but for me it was my comments on trans men in women's sports that were removed. I also unsubscribed and do not consider the NYT a reliable, honest purveyor of news anymore.
They often don’t publish my comments either. They will publish ad hominems from others as long as they are lockstep with progressive orthodoxy, but I could say something as innocuous as “Looks like the Emperor of DEI has no clothes” and it won’t get published. Happens about 25% of the time.
The fact is the NY Times can make many mistakes, and obviously at this point in time it was teetering on the brink in terms of letting the inmates take over the asylum, but there's always very rich journalism throughout the pages, some days a lot more than others. It's an incredible institution, with a vast number of excellent writers, and we are lucky for it.
I disagree so strongly with what you are saying! I think it USED TO BE all these things but it is now a hollow shell for progressive activists to slant the issues to suit their narrative. I put the NYT and FOX in the same rancid bucket.
I had an experience like that at a DEI training. During the training Some guy gets up and starts talking about how great communism is and everyone starts snapping. This includes the instructors whol were snapping and kind of dancing. I was like OMG how did I end up here.
Unlike Rubinstein I just kept my eyes down and my mouth shut because this group was crazy.
From a strategic standpoint, it makes perfect sense for people whose instinct is to defend the NYT and how it handled the events Rubenstein describes in the meat of the article to claim the sandwich story is false. If they can convince people (even if it's just themselves and their ideological kin) that he made that up, that calls into question his credibility and thus everything thereafter is dismissible. It's not a journalistic exercise, it's a battle tactic.
For some reason, I find the finger snapping to be the most sinister aspect of the whole story. Of course that's not the real injustice here, but it's such a concrete detail illustrating the mob mentality of the staffers.
I feel like I may be about to step in it, but there's some gray between "this didn't happen at all" and "this happened exactly as he said it did."
Did he say the thing about Chik-fil-A? It seems pretty certain that he did. Was there a negative reaction of some kind from the people in the room? It seems pretty certain that there was. Did everyone in the room act the perfect stereotype of a tutting, snapping smoothbrain? ...Maybe.
Note that it wouldn't make Rubenstein a "liar" if only a few people snapped rather than the implied consensus majority, or if those weren't the exact words the HR person used. It also wouldn't make him a "liar" if the bit about the $19 sandwich is more illustrative than real. This is an event that happened years ago, and none of these proposed inaccuracies, even if true, even if intentionally so, would make him a "liar" or necessitate a correction, since they aren't really provable one way or the other.
(It also wouldn't make him a "liar" if he said the Chik-fil-A thing fully knowing it would irk people.. It would irk me - I might've sarcastically said "Yeah, isn't fast food the greatest?")
Anyway...as ever...be skeptical of anything too perfect. If everyone at the NYT sucks, there's a strong chance that this guy - who they hired while sucking, do recall - probably kind of sucks too. The normal, vaguely irritating, vaguely exaggerating kind of suck, not the insitution-bonfiring suck of his senior colleagues, perhaps, but still.
I am sure they all did not synchronously erupt in snapping. However, knowing this crowd (and I do), there is almost no chance that some, seeing their peers snapping their fingers, would not join in. Silence is violence.
Speaking frankly, were I forced to be in such a session, I would've zoned out five minutes in. If I heard people randomly snapping, there's a good chance I'd do it too, on the ol' "look like I'm paying attention" autopilot mode. Heck I would probably have assumed they were all snapping because they like chicken sandwiches.
I don't at all mean to diminish Rubenstein's serious mistreatment w.r.t. the Cotton piece, nor do I mean to diminish the absolute insanity of current NYT journalists trying to discredit him over the precise factuality of a chicken sandwich anecdote, of all things.
Really, even if he made the whole thing up, it wouldn't matter a single bit. It's in fact a piercing indictment of those NYT folks that they would try to make "a thing" out of this at all. It's beyond indictment to conviction now that they've been caught BSing even about this stupid, stupid, stupid "thing" they tried their own best to gin up.
One of the features of this sort of behavior is that it only takes a few people to snap their fingers to signal to the group that a behavior is going to be punished, and that's sufficient to intimidate everyone else. So maybe some people don't care about Chick-Fil-A, and some people might even actually like their sandwiches, but once they hear the finger snaps then they back off. This is a common occurrence -- people who are shunned often report that colleagues come to them privately to agree with their position, but they won't take a public stand in fear of being attacked themselves. I think that's what so creepy about the finger snaps: it's a subtle gesture, but it's nonetheless expresses great malevolence. This is the sort of thing that Tony Soprano would be into.
Having said that, it's remarkable how Chick-Fil-A has been become right-coded in the culture wars, and it's something that drives progressives nuts. Occasionally someone will decide to make a public protest, march into a CFA and announce that they're gay or queer, and the usual response is, "Do you want any special sauces with your order?" I rarely go to them, just because I generally don't eat fast food, but whenever I have they consistently seem to be well-run, positive environments, and they hire out a lot of high-schoolers, so it's a great way to get started in the workforce. They also sponsor a lot of scholarships for their workers. I'm happy to patronize the institution just to support the kids. And of course, the Spicy Chicken Deluxe sandwich is very tasty; that's another reason. (The milkshakes are good too).
>Having said that, it's remarkable how Chick-Fil-A has been become right-coded in the culture wars
The fronts have multiplied. There's now a solid contingent that holds attacks on Chik-fil-A to be racially problematic because of the restaurant's popularity in communities of color. I've personally never paid them a cent because I don't cotton to the Christian-purity vibe, but I did have a coupon for a free sandwich once. Everyone was exceedingly friendly. The sandwich was...fine. Poor quality pickles & just nothing special. Popeye's is miles better, and their restaurants all play New Orleans jazz...just my onion.
But I can see he was treated unfairly but ALSO am a jerk. Can’t I be both, Jesse!?
Imagine that the sandwich story was told from another participant’s POV: “I was at a NYT orientation w/ Adam. During the icebreaker, he got a prompt asking his fav sandwich and you know what he said? Some sandwich from CHIK-FIL-A!!! What a homophobe!”
Given that reframing, not only would the current skeptics accept it happened, ppl would be coming forward to corroborate the veracity of the account as well as their subsequent trauma from being exposed to hateful speech
"An Open Letter to Management
TW: homophobia, transphobia, workplace violence
Folx,
I’d like to acknowledge that I'm writing this Slack message on the traditional territory of the Lenapehoking people and from my parents' pied-à-terre in Manhattan (just until I find my own place in Brooklyn!).
Unfortunately, in the past week, I was subject to an act of anti-LGBTQIA2S+ workplace violence. You would think that the New York Times would recognize its problematic history of platforming white men and be striving to #dobetter, but no. Instead, a week ago they hired a literal white cis able-bodied man from the literally fascist Weekly Standard! My colleagues and I were not warned about this beforehand and were instead forced to participate in an orientation icebreaker activity with this literal colonizer.
As you know, I am a proud non-binary demisexual. So I could hardly believe that when this white man was asked what his favorite sandwich was, he named a menu item from CHICK-FIL-A. A fast food establishment that literally wages genocide against LGBTQIA2S+ people like me.
Thankfully, the facilitator explained to him why what he did was deeply wrong and I did appreciate the allies who snapped their fingers in agreement with the facilitator, but that does not undo or erase the trauma that I experienced that day and the many spoons I have lost forever. The fact that this man, in his whiteness, is allowed to keep his job and propagate this hate has caused untold harm to me and my fellow LGBTQIA2S+ comrades at the Times."
Brilliant!
Heads I win, tails you lose.
I have to admit I laughed at the image of a bunch of newspaper employees in a room snapping about homophobic chicken dealers.
If only I had enough respect for them to have lost respect after this.
I have little doubt that the Chick-fil-A Incident happened in private because we've all seen very similar incidents happen in public. I'm sure there's a legal term for "part of a pattern."
Absolutely. I know that had I expressed even a vaguely positive opinion of Chick-fil-A a few years ago at the tech company I worked for back then people would have thought less of me, and possibly even complained. I remember well when many of my nerd friends at that company went out of their way to bash JK Rowling a few years ago whenever the topic of Harry Potter even tangentially arose. It would always go the same way too. Someone would make a vague reference to Harry Potter, and people would laugh, and then say something like "but of course, Rowling is a horrible transphobe."
So yeah, I absolutely believe that a group of NYT staffers would call someone out for saying ANYTHING vaguely positive about Chick-fil-A.
There were *protests* at my company in 2017 or so when the on-site corporate catering company we used for lunch (free lunch mind you; this was a well-funded tech startup in the late 'teens, we were all spoiled rotten) had chik-fil-a as one of the possible options.
I'm positive this story happened exactly as stated.
"Someone would make a vague reference to Harry Potter, and people would laugh, and then say something like "but of course, Rowling is a horrible transphobe."
As a big Harry Potter fan, I have to say this makes me very sad.
It was very sad. I remember a few months ago my buddy who runs the video gaming club at that company was telling me about their upcoming vote for "game of the year," and showed the list of candidates. I pointed out that Hogwarts Legacy (the Harry Potter game that came out last February and stirred up some very stupid controversy) wasn't on the list and said it should be included since it was one of the most successful games of the year. He sighed and said "too many people would be angry if I even included that as an option so I'm leaving it off."
The thing Rowling deserves to be criticized for is the scoring in quidditch. 150 points for getting the snitch - along with it ending the game - is way too much.
If history is a guide, the next step will be to drop “didn’t happen” and move to “it is right and good that it happened.”
In between the two is "Maybe it happened but who cares?".
I can also confidently state, as someone who graduated law school and first moved to NYC in 2019 (circa the time of Rubenstein's hiring), Chick-Fil-A was in the zeitgeist amongst hyper liberal circles (like law firms, but also probably the NYT). I heard forms of the Chick-Fil-A comment myself at work. I get we like to memory hole all of this, but it really wasn't THAT long ago.
But don't take my word for it! Read CNN commenting endlessly in 2019 about Chick-Fil-A
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/18/business/chick-fil-a-lgbtq-donations/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/19/opinions/chick-fil-a-charity-lgbtq-morgan/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/20/opinions/chick-fil-a-lgbtq-backlash-cancel-culture-hope/index.html
And you can read all about the 2019 Chick-Fil-A boycotts and the like elsewhere (which preceded the announcements referenced above at CNN):
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/19/world/europe/chik-fil-a-uk-lgbtg.html
https://www.jconline.com/story/news/2019/09/17/chickfila-starbucks-mcdonalds-boycott-lgbt-donations-fast-food-restaurant-purdue-university/2301619001/
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/san-antonio-city-council-bars-chick-fil-airport-citing-alleged-n987191
https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/chick-fil-banned-second-airport-two-weeks-n991016
This was all just lazy reflexive in-grouping. This was totally happening in 2019, much to everyone who was involved's shame now.
I was trying to remember when this happened—excellent work reminding all of us and pulling up the contemporaneous news articles!
So NHJ can't get basic historical facts right in her reporting, and she can't be bothered to do basic reporting on things happening right under her nose. She's worked there for 10 years but is either oblivious or lying. Maybe someone a little more capable should have her rather illustrious spot then
It’s almost as if she obtained her position for reasons not related to the quality of her academic writing or accuracy of her joirnalism.
What journalism? I’m not referring to quality but quantity. It’s as if NYT is employing her to write tweets
I can't read the article behind the paywall. You're probably aware, but Issac Bailey is someone else that doesn't seem to believe the sandwich story, which is predictable. He responded to Megan McArdle confirming the story. Someone responded to the thread saying that "Tristan de Cunha is not more isolated than these demands for rigor." I realize this is a twitter drama, but I thought it was relevant. I don't understand why people are spending so much time being skeptical when they could just engage with the article on other issues. NHJ and others seem incapable of steel-manning arguments in a way that makes discourse on politics like trench warfare; nothing advances. It's frustrating.
Ideologues like Bailey and Jones have had 10 years where those tactics have worked. Why have honest engagement when you're side is allowed to capture every institution with cheap rhetoric? I do think things are slowly turning though, and there will be a day when they don't get away with this.
Maybe I'm not aware of other behaviors, but Bailey seems to just be genuinely clueless, and I don't have a theory of mind for that. Jones is just dishonest. I don't know what it would look like to hold Bailey accountable because he seems incapable of seeing the world beyond his ideology. He drives me crazy in a way that Jones doesn't.
I don't understand why so many people who spent the bulk of the twenty-first century saying patronizing Chick-fil-A should be disqualifying for a job in media, particularly at the NYT, would be so eager to disprove an anecdote that unequivocally shows them getting the change they demanded.
I live in the South. Let anyone try to shame you for eating Chick-Fil-A here. Even the gays cross the picket line for it.
☝️This right here!!! 👆
One might add that an HR representative of one’s employer implying that one has created a hostile work environment is a per se threat, not merely one colleague making another colleague uncomfortable in a meeting, regardless of whether snapping happens afterwards.
Some threats are also colorful anecdotes, of course.
One might also add that reprimanding an employee at a meeting in front of his peers is an unprofessional act on the part of the HR employee. It was a violation of privacy that cast the employee in a most unfavorable light at a time when he hadn't had time to build trust with fellow employees.
There was nothing about what he said or the context in which he said it that required an immediate public chiding.
If that didn't violate the NYT's own policies and procedures and NY law, it should have.
I think we can all agree on one thing -- the Chick-Fil-A Spicy Chicken Deluxe sandwich really is delicious.
You have to admit that they do run a hell of a good operation over there
One thing I really like about CFA is that many of the workers are teenagers, and I think the experience is a great first step for them. Also, the company gives out a lot of scholarships.
What this situation did was made me lose my trust in the NYT.
I actually have had a similar experience. I've had two or three comments on Times' articles removed. They weren't abusive, they weren't ugly, they were simply raising questions about Zionism. They were just "not liked" so someone complained and the NYT deleted them.
But you can say about anything you want to about Trump.
As someone who has voted Democrat for 50 years and considers himself to be a "flaming liberal," I have been disheartened by the actions of the Times. I want to have a truly liberal news source. What Rubenstein experienced is what I have seen in the Times, although on a much smaller scale.
We stopped our subscription to the NYT a year ago.d
That’s interesting you mention comment moderation at the Times. Whenever I have tried to point out how commenters are allowed to traffic in racial stereotypes when describing non-white Trump voters (e.g, of course Latinos vote for Trump because they can’t help but be swayed by a strongman like the leaders of their countries) my comments won’t get published. I know comment moderation on the Times isn’t the same level of scandal as what happened to Rubenstein, but it seems to be part of the same pattern.
When I commented, quoting only homicide statistics from Chicago (heyjackass.com) without any editorializing, my comment was not published.
I canceled at the time of the Cotton incident. If over half the country agrees with something then it’s an opinion you need to reckon with if you aspire to being the Paper of Record. No matter how distasteful you find the opinion. In fact, if it’s an abhorrent opinion then it’s even *more* important to print the steel man and then take it apart.
Nazi.
j/k in case that’s not clear!
It was. This is a different kind of forum. People actually have senses of humor and are respectful.
Ah, I see. Guess I can’t tell you to go fly a kite, then.
I'm offended and rescind our offer for dinner tonight.
Oh yes. I've had several on-topic comments with zero ad hominem or socially objectionable content pulled after being posted and receiving likes, presumably because someone was upset that "the narrative" was being questioned. Whenever I comment pointing out the NYT failure to provide accurate information (the trans issue is rife with opportunities to do so), the comment is invariably not posted. I manage to keep a promotional subscription active by cycling through different emails each year, but will never pay full price.
Same, but for me it was my comments on trans men in women's sports that were removed. I also unsubscribed and do not consider the NYT a reliable, honest purveyor of news anymore.
They often don’t publish my comments either. They will publish ad hominems from others as long as they are lockstep with progressive orthodoxy, but I could say something as innocuous as “Looks like the Emperor of DEI has no clothes” and it won’t get published. Happens about 25% of the time.
Gosh, I stopped having faith in the NYT in 1970.
The fact is the NY Times can make many mistakes, and obviously at this point in time it was teetering on the brink in terms of letting the inmates take over the asylum, but there's always very rich journalism throughout the pages, some days a lot more than others. It's an incredible institution, with a vast number of excellent writers, and we are lucky for it.
There's no bigger business than Times bashing.
I disagree so strongly with what you are saying! I think it USED TO BE all these things but it is now a hollow shell for progressive activists to slant the issues to suit their narrative. I put the NYT and FOX in the same rancid bucket.
I'm envisioning Rubenstein, post-sandwich-remark, sitting in a room of finger-snapping people, and suddenly saying, "THIS is the Bad Place!"
I had an experience like that at a DEI training. During the training Some guy gets up and starts talking about how great communism is and everyone starts snapping. This includes the instructors whol were snapping and kind of dancing. I was like OMG how did I end up here.
Unlike Rubinstein I just kept my eyes down and my mouth shut because this group was crazy.
Do these people even /work/?
(he comments, at 9am)
From a strategic standpoint, it makes perfect sense for people whose instinct is to defend the NYT and how it handled the events Rubenstein describes in the meat of the article to claim the sandwich story is false. If they can convince people (even if it's just themselves and their ideological kin) that he made that up, that calls into question his credibility and thus everything thereafter is dismissible. It's not a journalistic exercise, it's a battle tactic.