The Swamp

tennbengal wrote:Counterpoint - you can write that piece without making it seem like a puff piece and not have it be a diatribe.

Yeah, but it didn't seem like a puff piece to me. Sure, it spent time on the guy's daily life. His engagement and other things, but then there'd be a picture of his bookshelf full of racist literature.

The his comments on mixed race couples seemed kind of innocuous, but then he'd comment on how Jews were controlling the world.

I think that once people hear about the story - before they read it - they will approach it with their pre-conceived notions about the "normalizing" of a racist.

And I think that the Times is completely wrong in apologizing for offending people. They should not backtrack by saying it "imperfectly" tried to shed light on certain corners of society. They should say - our readers are free to draw their own conclusions. And to say that the Times has given a "racist an unchallenged platform" is in my mind idiotic.

When Horvater made the "normal people" line, well, an intelligent reader knows what he means. He or she should know that this is an offensive quotation and is in the piece to show what an asshole the guy is.

Do people really need the editor to underline the word? Or have the writer blatantly state that "Nazis are bad"?

It's a paper that is written for intelligent adults. people who are offended by the lack of literal condemnation of the guy should stick to Salon or blog posts written in a splenetic manner.

It's not even a question of "letting people make up their own minds" it's a question of why can't people appreciate that there's more than one way to discuss an issue? More than one way to get a point across?

Right near the end of the article, there's a paragraph that starts with a description of the nazi making a pasta dish. Talked about his cats and his "tidy house" where "Books about Hitler and Mussolini shared shelf space with Nintendo Wii games. A day earlier, a neighbor had hung a Confederate flag in front of his house."

If you are a person who believes that books about Hitler and Confederate flags signify evil and the worst of humanity, than there can be no question as to what the writer and editor is trying to accomplish.

People - and I don't mean TB here - are being ridiculous.

You can even take issue with me, if you want.

A: I think you are giving too much of a pass to the average Times reader

B: Nazis, they're just like us is a weird approach to the issue

The twitter critique I referenced a few posts back I thought on point.

And, yes, Pruitt, in today's America, I do think you have to actually state Nazis are bad. Seriously. That has to be said.

Think about a ridiculous belief that some people hold. Just picking kinda randomly -- this whole "flat earth" thing. If the Times wanted to do a story to humanize one of those people, I think it would be reasonable and OK to say - "eh, so what". Ultimately, they're not hurting anyone or advocating killing everyone who isn't a white Christian. Unlike Nazis.

Maybe I'm missing something (wouldn't be the first time...) maybe it's the way the word "humanize" is being used.

Because that is what's going on, but not in a way that normalizes the guy, that says "he's just plain folks... a normal guy with off-kilter opinions."

More along the lines of - don't expect these guys to walk around in jackboots and armbands. These vile creatures (note the quotes in the article) are all around us. And they clearly are.

Tangent - whenever there's a mass-murderer that the neighbours say "he seemed like a regular guy," or words to that effect, it makes me crazy. What do people expect these guys to look and act like when they aren't killing people (or in this case, marching with racist banners)?

A: I think you are giving too much of a pass to the average Times reader

Clearly, this is the case.

And, yes, Pruitt, in today's America, I do think you have to actually state Nazis are bad. Seriously. That has to be said.

But isn't there any place left for writing that is more subtle? I mean, the Times - like pretty much all media outlets - is preaching to the choir. I think that's what gets me with this issue... this isn't the President or anyone in a position of authority saying that even nazis have pet cats so maybe they aren't compete monsters, this is a publication printing a portrait of a guy who is given enough rope to hang himself.

Not a comment directed at you guys - but it astounds me how fucking sensitive people are.

That's the whole thing with "normalization". Something mis-construed as such will look identical to an actual attempt. Thus the import of pointing it out, even if it sounds super snowflakey.

Spoiler alert - America has lost the narrative with respect to Nazis and white supremacists. The obvious needs to be stated each time.

tennbengal wrote:https://twitter.com/magi_jay/status/934878533834461185

https://twitter.com/magi_jay/status/934880260528791554

https://twitter.com/magi_jay/status/934880850545651716

Yeah, it's kinda hard to say it better than she did.

This Mangy Jay person makes good points... however she is ignoring something very important (and this is something I tell my students when they are planning their documentaries) it is IMPOSSIBLE to tell a complete story in any article or film.

If the writer of the story had done everything that she is suggesting, than the article would have to end up being an 800 page book. One digression would have to lead to another in order to give context to the first. That digression would necessitate another in order to give a fuller picture and so on and so on.

Listen, it's an article in a newspaper. It can not end up looking like a David Foster Wallace novel.

The times could have discussed a lot of things... which I have no doubt it has done in the past. But what she neglects to say - or even consider - is that the audience of the article KNOWS about neo-nazi views on the Holocaust.

Snark is so, so easy. Offence is so easy to find.

Pruitt wrote:This Mangy Jay person makes good points... however she is ignoring something very important (and this is something I tell my students when they are planning their documentaries) it is IMPOSSIBLE to tell a complete story in any article or film.

If the writer of the story had done everything that she is suggesting, than the article would have to end up being an 800 page book. One digression would have to lead to another in order to give context to the first. That digression would necessitate another in order to give a fuller picture and so on and so on.

Listen, it's an article in a newspaper. It can not end up looking like a David Foster Wallace novel.

The times could have discussed a lot of things... which I have no doubt it has done in the past. But what she neglects to say - or even consider - is that the audience of the article KNOWS about neo-nazi views on the Holocaust.

Snark is so, so easy. Offence is so easy to find.

I don't think for a second they weren't aware of the follow up material that would be forthcoming after the article was published. In fact, I'm guessing they banked on it.

This is worth a read if you want a chuckle.

https://twitter.com/willsommer/status/9 ... 7520076803

tennbengal wrote:You can even take issue with me, if you want.

A: I think you are giving too much of a pass to the average Times reader

B: Nazis, they're just like us is a weird approach to the issue

The twitter critique I referenced a few posts back I thought on point.

And, yes, Pruitt, in today's America, I do think you have to actually state Nazis are bad. Seriously. That has to be said.

After all, Trump thinks that there are good people among those neo-Nazis.

There is that. And look! The Times apparently found one!

tennbengal wrote:There is that. And look! The Times apparently found one!

I urge you to re-read the article. And imagine that you came to it cold - no preconceptions.

Check out the quotes and the placement of details...

Pruitt wrote: Offence is so easy to find.

Is it ok that I was SUPER offended that, in the online version of the story, they included a link to the site where you could buy a Swastika armband?

DaveInSeattle wrote:

Pruitt wrote: Offence is so easy to find.

Is it ok that I was SUPER offended that, in the online version of the story, they included a link to the site where you could buy a Swastika armband?

Putting aside the offensiveness of this particular story, a question I have is why major publications like the N.Y. Times keep running these in-depth pieces on white supremacist leaders, and thus giving them increased fame and notoriety within their circles. This is at least the fourth such person that I am aware of who has gotten such a write-up in recent months. If you want to write about race in America, why not profile the day-to-day work of civil rights activists instead? Or write about the individuals or communities who have been threatened by these racist groups?

Those are great questions, JoeK.

DaveInSeattle wrote:

Pruitt wrote: Offence is so easy to find.

Is it ok that I was SUPER offended that, in the online version of the story, they included a link to the site where you could buy a Swastika armband?

Nope. Just normal folks buying normal things.

Joe K wrote:

DaveInSeattle wrote:

Pruitt wrote: Offence is so easy to find.

Is it ok that I was SUPER offended that, in the online version of the story, they included a link to the site where you could buy a Swastika armband?

Putting aside the offensiveness of this particular story, a question I have is why major publications like the N.Y. Times keep running these in-depth pieces on white supremacist leaders, and thus giving them increased fame and notoriety within their circles. This is at least the fourth such person that I am aware of who has gotten such a write-up in recent months. If you want to write about race in America, why not profile the day-to-day work of civil rights activists instead? Or write about the individuals or communities who have been threatened by these racist groups?

Most of the press is pretty moderate-liberal and so are the people they associate with. So they find actual people who actually believe this Nazi stuff to be fascinating, because they can't believe people actually think this way.

With regard to the Times reporter, if that's the explanation, then they really do need to get out of their weird bubble in NYC. Growing up where I did in Ohio, I knew a LOT of people like the Panera Nazi they profiled.

Steve of phpBB wrote:

Joe K wrote:

DaveInSeattle wrote:

Pruitt wrote: Offence is so easy to find.

Is it ok that I was SUPER offended that, in the online version of the story, they included a link to the site where you could buy a Swastika armband?

Putting aside the offensiveness of this particular story, a question I have is why major publications like the N.Y. Times keep running these in-depth pieces on white supremacist leaders, and thus giving them increased fame and notoriety within their circles. This is at least the fourth such person that I am aware of who has gotten such a write-up in recent months. If you want to write about race in America, why not profile the day-to-day work of civil rights activists instead? Or write about the individuals or communities who have been threatened by these racist groups?

Most of the press is pretty moderate-liberal and so are the people they associate with. So they find actual people who actually believe this Nazi stuff to be fascinating, because they can't believe people actually think this way.

This is probably true, but as others have pointed out in this thread, you have to be incredibly naive or ignorant of American history to think that racism among "normal" members of society is a rarity. I mean, there are all those horrifying photos of smiling families, dressed in their Sunday best to attend public lynchings.

Joe K wrote:This is probably true, but as others have pointed out in this thread, you have to be incredibly naive or ignorant of American history to think that racism among "normal" members of society is a rarity. I mean, there are all those horrifying photos of smiling families, dressed in their Sunday best to attend public lynchings.

Racism, sure. But hell, we're all racist to some degree. Actual Nazis are way above that.

Nazi Boy, Wife and Brother In Law Lost Jobs Because of Article

Comedy Gold!

After Hovater was fired, his supporters launched a crowdfunding campaign through a website called Goyfundme.com to raise money for him and his wife.

Yes, "Goyfundme!"

LA Times Looks Into It

Only investor in this company that they were able to identify is

Chief Executive David Welch, a Los Angeles attorney known for representing members of the cannabis industry, [who] declined to comment.

The mass layoffs are a way to get rid of the union.

The company said Oct. 31 that because Semanal is buying only LA Weekly’s assets, Semanal will not be bound by the union contract.

Nice.

A co-worker of mine bought an alternative weekly (though I guess it's published in print monthly now) in Kansas City.

Seeing as how we all work in publishing, kinda had to sidestep the elephant in the room when we were offering our congratulations. Hope it works out for them, but seems like a really risky investment.

brian wrote:A co-worker of mine bought an alternative weekly (though I guess it's published in print monthly now) in Kansas City.

Seeing as how we all work in publishing, kinda had to sidestep the elephant in the room when we were offering our congratulations. Hope it works out for them, but seems like a really risky investment.

Maybe they need someone to write about where to get Creme Eggs.

I doubt they pay much of anything, but if Bronto has any freelance ideas I'm willing to make some introductions. Don't think there's much crossover between what he wants to do and what they do though.

Who knows, there might be some upside.

"Jason Isbell came to KC to play a set. I got him to talk NASCAR."

When did the New York Times turn conservative?

I don't know why but Brian's comment about the alternative newspaper triggered something for me. I just remembered that one of the dumbest, uncoolest dorks I knew in high school got a gig 20+ years ago as the music reviewer for Westword, which was a popular Denver-based alternative paper. I think he's still there.

I chatted with him at a Christmas party shortly after he got that job, and I was surprised as his lack of music knowledge at that time. But he did have a funny story about how he got a trial by fire after one of his early columns by making an off-handed negative remark about the Grateful Dead. The Deadhead nation arose as one to crucify him for it.

rass wrote: ↑Wed Mar 28, 2018 12:35 pm

"misspoke" Bullshit. He knew exactly what he was saying and he is a fucking idiot. I am embarased to be from the state where he was a senator.

rass wrote: ↑Wed Mar 28, 2018 12:35 pm

"End of Journalism" in a nutshell. Create a story, inflate the story, comment on the story, debate the story.

A local reporter blamed it on the layoffs...stuff like this is what happens when you don't have the editorial layers you used to.

Avram wrote: ↑Wed Mar 28, 2018 2:00 pm

rass wrote: ↑Wed Mar 28, 2018 12:35 pm

"misspoke" Bullshit. He knew exactly what he was saying and he is a fucking idiot. I am embarased to be from the state where he was a senator.

C'mon...can't have a post of Senator "frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex" without the BEST PICTURE EVER!!!

Sabo wrote: ↑Fri Apr 06, 2018 12:40 pm

Denver Post editorial page editor resigns amid staff cuts

http://thehill.com/homenews/media/38616 ... -out-owner

One for Bronto, how do journalists handle 'off the record'.

Because it's blown up in Ottawa today.



The blogger got the scoop, the papers are running with it. Alfredsson is mad

her twitter's gone nuts

https://twitter.com/SusanSherring