Post

there's a million fascinating under-platformed U.S. scientists, educators, activists, artists, doers, and thinkers the New York Times could profile, but they keep validating this foppish white supremacist fired for election lies why would a major journalistic institution do that, do you think

This post is unavailable.

61 reposts255 likes

the Times invested money, time and travel budget for a photographer and journalist to head to Maine to lob softball questions at an extremely racist Swanson frozen food empire heir with a history of spreading far right wing propaganda why is that, do you think

Because even within the institutions with incredibly crucial public missions and principles of ethics, we're all living in such a precarity economy foisted on us by grifting capitalistic assholes, that everything comes down to "I better do this thing that will make my boss happy"

Someone (perhaps one of your readers?) should do a kind of proto MacArthur Genius awards via crowdsourcing. Have regular people nominate fascinating people whose work should be more widely known. Make a little informal library of profiles. Then push news orgs to actually profile them.

They interviewed him because he’s a leading voice on the right and massively influential with his followers. He is a piece of shit, but Lulu was doing journalism.

were there aspects of his opinions that genuinely needed a deep journalistic inquiry? Are there not questions to be asked about why it's necessary to further elevate a racist liar and propagandist who already has a massive platform? Is this the best use of journalistic resources?

For me it’s a know your enemy situation. There were several useful takeaways from this convo. For one, his insight into the motivations for the continued support of Israel, chief among them, evangelical christian end times prophecy fulfillment. The interview was disturbing, but I’m glad I listened.