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.
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 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."
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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."
I have to admit I laughed at the image of a bunch of newspaper employees in a room snapping about homophobic chicken dealers.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
I think we can all agree on one thing -- the Chick-Fil-A Spicy Chicken Deluxe sandwich really is delicious.
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
I'm envisioning Rubenstein, post-sandwich-remark, sitting in a room of finger-snapping people, and suddenly saying, "THIS is the Bad Place!"
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.