辞职信： https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter?from=groupmessage Dear A.G., It is with sadness that I write to tell you that I am resigning from The New York Times. I joined the paper with gratitude and optimism three years ago. I was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of The Times as their home. The reason for this effort was clear: The paper’s failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn’t have a firm grasp of the country it covers. Dean Baquet and others have admitted as much on various occasions. The priority in Opinion was to help redress that critical shortcoming. I was honored to be part of that effort, led by James Bennet. I am proud of my work as a writer and as an editor. Among those I helped bring to our pages: the Venezuelan dissident Wuilly Arteaga; the Iranian chess champion Dorsa Derakhshani; and the Hong Kong Christian democrat Derek Lam. Also: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Masih Alinejad, Zaina Arafat, Elna Baker, Rachael Denhollander, Matti Friedman, Nick Gillespie, Heather Heying, Randall Kennedy, Julius Krein, Monica Lewinsky, Glenn Loury, Jesse Singal, Ali Soufan, Chloe Valdary, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Wesley Yang, and many others. But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else. Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions.I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative. My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are. There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong. I do not understand how you have allowed this kind of behavior to go on inside your company in full view of the paper’s entire staff and the public. And I certainly can’t square how you and other Times leaders have stood by while simultaneously praising me in private for my courage. Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery. Part of me wishes I could say that my experience was unique. But the truth is that intellectual curiosity—let alone risk-taking—is now a liability at The Times. Why edit something challenging to our readers, or write something bold only to go through the numbing process of making it ideologically kosher, when we can assure ourselves of job security (and clicks) by publishing our 4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world? And so self-censorship has become the norm. What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets. Op-eds that would have easily been published just two years ago would now get an editor or a writer in serious trouble, if not fired. If a piece is perceived as likely to inspire backlash internally or on social media, the editor or writer avoids pitching it. If she feels strongly enough to suggest it, she is quickly steered to safer ground. And if, every now and then, she succeeds in getting a piece published that does not explicitly promote progressive causes, it happens only after every line is carefully massaged, negotiated and caveated. It took the paper two days and two jobs to say that the Tom Cotton op-ed “fell short of our standards.” We attached an editor’s note on a travel story about Jaffa shortly after it was published because it “failed to touch on important aspects of Jaffa’s makeup and its history.” But there is still none appended to Cheryl Strayed’s fawning interview with the writer Alice Walker, a proud anti-Semite who believes in lizard Illuminati. The paper of record is, more and more, the record of those living in a distant galaxy, one whose concerns are profoundly removed from the lives of most people. This is a galaxy in which, to choose just a few recent examples, the Soviet space program is lauded for its “diversity”; the doxxing of teenagers in the name of justice is condoned; and the worst caste systems in human history includes the United States alongside Nazi Germany. Even now, I am confident that most people at The Times do not hold these views. Yet they are cowed by those who do. Why? Perhaps because they believe the ultimate goal is righteous. Perhaps because they believe that they will be granted protection if they nod along as the coin of our realm—language—is degraded in service to an ever-shifting laundry list of right causes. Perhaps because there are millions of unemployed people in this country and they feel lucky to have a job in a contracting industry. Or perhaps it is because they know that, nowadays, standing up for principle at the paper does not win plaudits. It puts a target on your back. Too wise to post on Slack, they write to me privately about the “new McCarthyism” that has taken root at the paper of record. All this bodes ill, especially for independent-minded young writers and editors paying close attention to what they’ll have to do to advance in their careers. Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you’ll be hung out to dry. For these young writers and editors, there is one consolation. As places like The Times and other once-great journalistic institutions betray their standards and lose sight of their principles, Americans still hunger for news that is accurate, opinions that are vital, and debate that is sincere. I hear from these people every day. “An independent press is not a liberal ideal or a progressive ideal or a democratic ideal. It’s an American ideal,” you said a few years ago. I couldn’t agree more. America is a great country that deserves a great newspaper. None of this means that some of the most talented journalists in the world don’t still labor for this newspaper. They do, which is what makes the illiberal environment especially heartbreaking. I will be, as ever, a dedicated reader of their work. But I can no longer do the work that you brought me here to do—the work that Adolph Ochs described in that famous 1896 statement: “to make of the columns of The New York Times a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to that end to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.” Ochs’s idea is one of the best I’ve encountered. And I’ve always comforted myself with the notion that the best ideas win out. But ideas cannot win on their own. They need a voice. They need a hearing. Above all, they must be backed by people willing to live by them. Sincerely, Bari
有点良心和血性的媒体人 只是生不逢时 如今nyt wsj存在的意义 不是告诉你真实新闻，而是想办法让你多subscribe赚钱 如今cnn nbc存在的意义 也不是告诉你真实新闻，而是提高收视率赚广告 We are one of the worst period generation period ever period
有点良心和血性的媒体人 只是生不逢时 如今nyt wsj存在的意义 不是告诉你真实新闻，而是想办法让你多subscribe赚钱 如今cnn nbc存在的意义 也不是告诉你真实新闻，而是提高收视率赚广告 We are one of the worst period generation period ever period
有点良心和血性的媒体人 只是生不逢时 如今nyt wsj存在的意义 不是告诉你真实新闻，而是想办法让你多subscribe赚钱 如今cnn nbc存在的意义 也不是告诉你真实新闻，而是提高收视率赚广告 We are one of the worst period generation period ever period
辞职信：https://www.bariweiss.com/resignation-letter?from=groupmessageDear A.G.,It is with sadness that I write to tell you that I am resigning from The New York Times. I joined the paper with gratitude and optimism three years ago. I was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of The Times as their home. The reason for this effort was clear: The paper’s failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn’t have a firm grasp of the country it covers. Dean Baquet and others have admitted as much on various occasions. The priority in Opinion was to help redress that critical shortcoming.I was honored to be part of that effort, led by James Bennet. I am proud of my work as a writer and as an editor. Among those I helped bring to our pages: the Venezuelan dissident Wuilly Arteaga; the Iranian chess champion Dorsa Derakhshani; and the Hong Kong Christian democrat Derek Lam. Also: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Masih Alinejad, Zaina Arafat, Elna Baker, Rachael Denhollander, Matti Friedman, Nick Gillespie, Heather Heying, Randall Kennedy, Julius Krein, Monica Lewinsky, Glenn Loury, Jesse Singal, Ali Soufan, Chloe Valdary, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Wesley Yang, and many others.But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else.Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong. I do not understand how you have allowed this kind of behavior to go on inside your company in full view of the paper’s entire staff and the public. And I certainly can’t square how you and other Times leaders have stood by while simultaneously praising me in private for my courage. Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery.Part of me wishes I could say that my experience was unique. But the truth is that intellectual curiosity—let alone risk-taking—is now a liability at The Times. Why edit something challenging to our readers, or write something bold only to go through the numbing process of making it ideologically kosher, when we can assure ourselves of job security (and clicks) by publishing our 4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world? And so self-censorship has become the norm.What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets. Op-eds that would have easily been published just two years ago would now get an editor or a writer in serious trouble, if not fired. If a piece is perceived as likely to inspire backlash internally or on social media, the editor or writer avoids pitching it. If she feels strongly enough to suggest it, she is quickly steered to safer ground. And if, every now and then, she succeeds in getting a piece published that does not explicitly promote progressive causes, it happens only after every line is carefully massaged, negotiated and caveated.It took the paper two days and two jobs to say that the Tom Cotton op-ed “fell short of our standards.” We attached an editor’s note on a travel story about Jaffa shortly after it was published because it “failed to touch on important aspects of Jaffa’s makeup and its history.” But there is still none appended to Cheryl Strayed’s fawning interview with the writer Alice Walker, a proud anti-Semite who believes in lizard Illuminati. The paper of record is, more and more, the record of those living in a distant galaxy, one whose concerns are profoundly removed from the lives of most people. This is a galaxy in which, to choose just a few recent examples, the Soviet space program is lauded for its “diversity”; the doxxing of teenagers in the name of justice is condoned; and the worst caste systems in human history includes the United States alongside Nazi Germany.Even now, I am confident that most people at The Times do not hold these views. Yet they are cowed by those who do. Why? Perhaps because they believe the ultimate goal is righteous. Perhaps because they believe that they will be granted protection if they nod along as the coin of our realm—language—is degraded in service to an ever-shifting laundry list of right causes. Perhaps because there are millions of unemployed people in this country and they feel lucky to have a job in a contracting industry. Or perhaps it is because they know that, nowadays, standing up for principle at the paper does not win plaudits. It puts a target on your back. Too wise to post on Slack, they write to me privately about the “new McCarthyism” that has taken root at the paper of record.All this bodes ill, especially for independent-minded young writers and editors paying close attention to what they’ll have to do to advance in their careers. Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you’ll be hung out to dry.For these young writers and editors, there is one consolation. As places like The Times and other once-great journalistic institutions betray their standards and lose sight of their principles, Americans still hunger for news that is accurate, opinions that are vital, and debate that is sincere. I hear from these people every day. “An independent press is not a liberal ideal or a progressive ideal or a democratic ideal. It’s an American ideal,” you said a few years ago. I couldn’t agree more. America is a great country that deserves a great newspaper. None of this means that some of the most talented journalists in the world don’t still labor for this newspaper. They do, which is what makes the illiberal environment especially heartbreaking. I will be, as ever, a dedicated reader of their work. But I can no longer do the work that you brought me here to do—the work that Adolph Ochs described in that famous 1896 statement: “to make of the columns of The New York Times a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to that end to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.”Ochs’s idea is one of the best I’ve encountered. And I’ve always comforted myself with the notion that the best ideas win out. But ideas cannot win on their own. They need a voice. They need a hearing. Above all, they must be backed by people willing to live by them. Sincerely,Bari lylo 发表于 2020-07-14 12:58
等着吧下一步就是这个记者要被开除左籍了。lol, 以后opinion writer 估计要先签对BLM的宣誓书：I pledge of allegiance to BLM. Long live BLM.
有点良心和血性的媒体人 只是生不逢时 如今nyt wsj存在的意义 不是告诉你真实新闻，而是想办法让你多subscribe赚钱 如今cnn nbc存在的意义 也不是告诉你真实新闻，而是提高收视率赚广告 We are one of the worst period generation period ever period
有点良心和血性的媒体人 只是生不逢时 如今nyt wsj存在的意义 不是告诉你真实新闻，而是想办法让你多subscribe赚钱 如今cnn nbc存在的意义 也不是告诉你真实新闻，而是提高收视率赚广告 We are one of the worst period generation period ever period
My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are. And I certainly can’t square how you and other Times leaders have stood by while simultaneously praising me in private for my courage.Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery. Why edit something challenging to our readers, or write something bold only to go through the numbing process of making it ideologically kosher, when we can assure ourselves of job security (and clicks) by publishing our 4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world? And so self-censorship has become the norm. 太tm真实了！赞信息量：媒体陷入self-censorship怪圈的全过程。
有点良心和血性的媒体人 只是生不逢时 如今nyt wsj存在的意义 不是告诉你真实新闻，而是想办法让你多subscribe赚钱 如今cnn nbc存在的意义 也不是告诉你真实新闻，而是提高收视率赚广告 We are one of the worst period generation period ever period
fishtank 发表于 2020-07-14 13:04
曾经有过客观媒体吗？从来都是populist的games, 我们选择what to listen而已
这样有职业精神的记者越来越少了。大多数记者即使清醒的认识到这一点，也不愿意牺牲个人利益改变现状。一定要树倒猢狲才肯散。下面的这段话写得很好 - Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else. 所谓的精英们不愿相信民间有智慧。觉得被平民说服是对他们常青藤下，象牙塔中几年积累的知识的侮辱。傲慢且浅薄。失去humble能力的人最终会失去自我。
Most revealing is the commentary section of NYT’s rebuttal. The vast majority of NYT readers agreed with Bari. Many people said they were disturbed by the leftist agenda and would quit the newspaper.
难道FOX NEWS, WSJ，BREITBART, DAILY WIRE这些右派媒体，存在的目的就是为了传播真相，造福人民？
醒醒吧，这些都是商业媒体而已
讲道理，在美国能称得上不怎么为广告利益考虑的，只有AP 和PBS，可就算这两家的报道还不是被经常被川粉说成为阴谋反川？
nyt，cnn，nbc这些连收视率都不在乎了吧，viewership/rating狂跌丝毫不在乎，一心一意为某党传播propaganda，跟ccp的ccav宣传喉舌一个样子了。
NYT is basically handing over market share.
Wonder if they are vegetarian
如果媒体只是为了钱还好，现在就是为了愚民。
谢谢推荐，跟着subscribe了
五毛只能看CCAV，日人民报，幸福感还强的不行。佩服五毛
所以这些媒体后面的出资人是谁？
PBS 讲道理，脑子生锈了。
谢谢推荐，subscribe了。
《纽约时报》评论版编辑Bari Weiss致信报纸的出版人A.G. Sulzberger，宣布辞职。她说，三年前她加入报社，满怀信心，而当时报社雇用她的目的是加进一些保守派的声音，纠正报纸在2016年对大选充满误导的报道。但今天，她说纽约时报已经成为一个无法容忍不同见解的工作场所。
每天都坚持看CNN, NYT, WAPO，学习如何颠倒黑白，指鹿为马。好可以以痞子道，还痞子身。
连Silent都已经被定义成一种暴力了，还谈什么不同的见解啊，直接上xxxism的词了
真心佩服，我看了那几坨屎实在是心里不适
使劲黑吧。你高兴就好。
使劲黑吧。你高兴就好。
I think she is actually a left leaning 中立派。
哈哈，手动点赞。这个楼你都敢进啊，还发言，真是佩服。声援你一下。
能在NYT待到现在，估计NYT的现状就是这帮人扶植起来的，只是现在弄到自己罢了。
我信FOx，WSJ远远多过左媒。
还有PBS绝对的左媒。
看她的主页，有自己的书，How to fight anti-semitism，版上有人读过吗？
革命革到自己头上？
你是不是没有读？她肯定不是其中之一。
一群左逼文科生，没有逻辑没有common sense。
关于NYT， 2004年开始我subscribe。后来也看英国人出的economist。
2011年仍然喜欢NYT 上Paul Krugman 的专栏，觉得相比之下，曼昆是个资本家的丧家犬。
2015年economist 在讨论欧洲迎接难民的经济影响。很多留言都反对大规模引进难民。
然后一个小男孩被淹死了，遇难照片铺天盖地，从此听不到反对的声音。像不像Times 把一个哭泣的墨西哥小女孩和川普放一起的封面？
很快economist 取消了留言讨论功能。诡异的是，各大网络媒体几乎在同一时间取消了读者留言功能，只有fox和nyt 留下来。
然后发现Paul Krugman 根本不再谈经济，拼命谈政治。我在社会主义长大，还用你教我什么是社会主义？果断取关。
华人起诉哈佛入学的时候，我看了看NYT，注意了留言区的讨论。最受欢迎的留言是，一个读者声称是藤校校友，参与了校友录取面试。他说，华人孩子看起来都特没主见，特cookie cutter ，举例说一个华人女孩，问她一个问题，她不知道如何回答，竟然回头看她爸爸，似乎要争得同意才开口。下面点赞回复的成群，都说“没错，我见过的华人孩子都这样”
我出离愤怒了。这么无耻的扯谎，合着面试是要父亲在场？！华人女孩能申请藤校，一般都是口才，判断力，行动力杠杠的女孩子，至少准备面试不会这么面吧？这扯谎的读者是看多了Sussie Wang电影还是什么？这种NYT 的读者群，让我感到恶心和寒心。
有感兴趣要验证的同学，我回家找出网页link贴出来。
不可说之民族，上帝的子民，最善良最无辜最受纳粹迫害的莲花一族。对他们而言我们都是goyim
手工点赞！完全同意你的看法！
which means radical right nowadays
😂
Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in.
There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.
And I certainly can’t square how you and other Times leaders have stood by while simultaneously praising me in private for my courage. Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery.
Why edit something challenging to our readers, or write something bold only to go through the numbing process of making it ideologically kosher, when we can assure ourselves of job security (and clicks) by publishing our 4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world? And so self-censorship has become the norm.
太tm真实了！赞信息量：媒体陷入self-censorship怪圈的全过程。
Soros.还有说出10亿要把Trump拉下马的Bloomberg. 有人出大钱，收视率广告费都不算什么。
曾经有过客观媒体吗？从来都是populist的games, 我们选择what to listen而已
手动点赞，完全同意！
现在稍有自由思考能力的记者和教授都被左臂以软暴力封嘴了。如今骂川普随意，但任何不符合极左思维的话题，都被禁止，已经没有了言论自由的空间。
这个记者其实算是左的了，但架不住极左看她不顺眼
谢谢分享。说得很好。一看就是老读者
估计背后有Soros等富豪集团支持，根本不在乎广告收入
Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative. 一针见血！
为了要理解一个新闻的影响，我需要看fox，NBC, zhihu 和rt. Com才能了解大致情况。
Rt. Com是俄国的宣传部。现在的读者真不容易 lol