|
The New York Times ran a disturbing op-ed. But the backlash misses the mark. (i.e. don't boycott the NYT! Keep journalist jobs safe!)
 [TheGuardian] The op-ed in question, by columnist Bret Stephens, was called "The Secrets of Jewish Genius," and the white supremacist Stephens invoked ‐ from ignorance, one hopes, rather than malice ‐ was the late anthropologist Henry Harpending. Harpending’s work has been repeatedly and spectacularly debunked by far better scientists, and most recently rejected as unfounded in March 2018 on the pages of the New York Times itself. It’s too much to expect Stephens to read the newspaper for which he works, I suppose.Within a day, the Times appended an editors’ note to Stephens’ piece, explaining that it removed the reference to Harpending’s paper and to Ashkenazi Jews in general. The bizarre note also denied the column said what it said: that Ashkenazi Jews are inherently superior to others, including Sephardic Jews. Intelligence is a heritable trait. But now we get to the real meat of the argument: don't boycott the NYT. Although the harsh criticism of Stephens and the Times was completely warranted, in other respects the response – especially the calls for boycott – was misguided. Such posing not only simulates real political action, it displaces it, satiating one's need to feel like one has done something. This is an example of a non-boycott boycott, narcissistic stunts we have seen emerge with targets like Starbucks and Facebook in recent years. Before anyone says "What about South Africa?" or "What about the lunch counters during the civil rights movement?", yes, specific, targeted, organized boycotts that generate real financial harm and demand serious sacrifice or risk by participants can effect change. But none of that is happening with these hashtag eruptions. Potentially effective boycotts are focused, local, disciplined, and have specific, articulated goals and demands. They must bring public shame and measurable financial harm to a firm. A few people tweeting "I'm going to stop subscribing to the Times because of Bret Stephens" does not rise to the level of successful social movements or tactics. He's afraid that a successful boycott of the NYT would harm his side. If one believes, in the absence of evidence, that a few dozen Twitter users canceling subscriptions to the New York Times would affect decisions at the Times, one does not understand the incentives embedded in the attention economy. The Times, like most other globally available web publications (including Breitbart and any number of white supremacist sites), benefits from umbrage as much as applause. Futility aside, to threaten to withhold revenue to any respectable news publication at this moment in history is hard to justify. We need quality journalism, expensive investigations, and bright commentary more than ever. The Times, for all its flaws, overwhelmingly delivers all of these things. The Times has serious lapses in judgment and reporting – like any publication, including The Guardian – but we should not wish for a day when The New York Times does not exist. THIS paragraph was the real argument. We journalists are in trouble and don't you dare cancel your subscription. We will tell you to STFU and learn to code when your job gets replaced, but OUR jobs are sacred! Related: Bret Stephens: 2018-01-13 Former Obama Official Hints Admin Warned Terrorist That Israel Was Going To Assassinate Him Bret Stephens: 2017-07-07 ‘Never Trumper’ Bret Stephens: POTUS Supporters ‘Idiots’ & Bigots, Should ‘Admire’ Elites Bret Stephens: 2017-05-29 Hillary Clinton Is Delusional, Hateful And Insane Posted by: Herb McCoy 2020-01-02 |
| http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=559997 |