Am I wrong? Yesterday I canceled my New York Times subscription due to the hiring of

[Augiedog]

Bret Stephens, a global warming/climate change denier, at least when it comes to anthropogenic issues.

I didn't do this lightly, nor as a knee jerk reaction. My primary reason is that I simply do not want my subscription dollars to go toward fake news validation. That is precisely what giving Stephens the Times format is, validation. As if there is some scientific equivalence or arguement about one of the prime contributors to global warming, that being humans. Generally you can't solve a problem if you deny the cause of it.

I would have no problem with the New York Times publishing this denier's screeds if they didn't pay him for this scam he perpetuates. This status he has acquired will be used by others as a validation by the "nation's paper of record" that there is an argument to be engaged in concerning the issue of anthropogenic global warming. There is NOT. Just as there is not an argument to be had about the cause and historical fact of the holocaust.

With all the problems we have these days it is of the highest importance that fact and truth lead our decision making. The consequences of global warming go beyond simple climate change. That is such a non threatening term or phrase, climate change. We all wish for climate change, it's been raining on and off here where I live for 5 days. Gee, I wish that would change. But climate change is just the tip of that, disappearing, iceberg.

Disease, massive population dislocation, war, starvation all are included in the upcoming era of climate change. Some societies may not be able to survive the onslaught. It may be that the most technically advanced will be the the least able to manage these consequences.

Even the U.S. Military acknowledges that global warming is a threat to our national security right now. The Navy is scrambling to work out what to do about shipyards basically drowning. Things that shouldn't be underwater are dangerously close to being so.

In response to my subscription cancellation the NYT responded saying "Hiring Bret Stephens is an effort to provide a new perspective to The Times, and bring our readers greater understanding of the world (and all the voices within it)". It's my contention that fake news can be found in plenty of other places; Fox News, Alex Jones or Limbaugh come to mind.

So, am I wrong? Is this a useless protest? Or do I have a case? Is it even rational for me to think that my tiny little subscription to the mighty New York Times matters at all?

[brooklynite]

1. In my opinion, yes you were

You cancelled your subscription, because you didn't like something that someone else wrote, and you didn't like the fact that the NYT allowed it. Ask yourself the following: on the day you read (I assume you did) the Bret Stephens op-ed, how much of the rest of the paper did you read? Did you find an equivalent bias in the reporting and investigative journalism?

I've hap a 7-days paper subscription to the NYT since 1974. I respect it in aggregate for it's journalistic standards in news-gathering. As for its opinions (or the opinions of those it offers space to), I can deal with people who disagree with me.

[jrthin]

10. The issue I have with

this assessment is that you are saying it's okay to legitimize this kind of thinking. We assume that freedom of speech means giving a forum for that speech. The NYT considers itself a legitimate paper, therefore having Bret Stephens there delegitimizes the paper and in my mind puts the whole paper in question. For example, we sit confidently to read a literary work, then we start to notice grammar errors, or poorly written sentences, at that moment no matter how esteemed the literary work, it becomes diminished.


And for me, who has subscribed to the NYT's since the early eighties, I do not in aggregate find the NYT journalistic standards high. I followed the reporting of Hillary's email server and just sighed. This is a paper that found it difficult to say that a man (45) is lying, despite all objective facts that is what he was doing. This is a paper who in its editorial pages derided Martin Luther King as a rabble rouser and in essence should not be listen to. I believe the hype that the NYT is quality journalism is more hype than reality. Are their good writers there, Charles Blow and Krugman, to name a couple, yes. Are they worth my supporting a paper that each day helps to make progress of a civilized society better for the forgotten, no.

Last year I cancelled my weekly subscription and am about to cancel my weekend subscription. NYT is aiding in the normalization an indecent society and an indecent mindset.

[brooklynite]

15. You say you've had a subscription since the 80s...

...which meant you didn't cancel it when they gave an op-ed slot to Bill Kristol.

[jrthin]

17. You're correct. I have put up with a

lot, for the sake of reading the paper. I've grown up and realized what the paper purports to stand for and what it actually stands for are two different things.

[cwydro]

20. You said it better than I could.

I love my NYTimes, and I, too, can handle occasionally reading op-ed pieces that I might not agree with.

It's sad that even those on the left cannot stand to hear anything other than their own views. Echo chambers do nothing for critical thinking skills.

[WhiteTara]

2. I don't think it's useless

The only real vote you have is your dollars and if the NYT is going to go all Breitbart, they don't deserve to print their paper. JMHO of course

[AnotherMother4Peace]

3. Without the press & NYT the Russia story would be gone. I will support them. nt

[jrthin]

11. The Washing Post has done a better job on the Russian story. nt

[Shanti Mama]

4. I understand your decision, but think, on balance the NYT does excellent work

I listened to the Pod Save America conversation about this and they were pretty persuasive in their somewhat pompous way about NOT unsubscribing.
The fact is, we want and need journalism to cover the spectrum of opinion. What the NYT did wrong, in my opinion, is allow the piece to go through without enough editing. There is opinion, and there is fact. They printed opinions about whether facts are valid. I think that's BS. If they want to print opinions about the sources of the facts, the implications of the fact, etc... go for it. But fact is fact.

[Orsino]

5. I don't know of any other way to shame them.

The rot is old, and pointing it out repeatedly hasn't changed NYT's tendencies to promote regressive policy and trivialize progressivism. They also do some very good work.

I don't think there's a wrong answer.

[hatrack]

6. No, you are not wrong . . .

The Times recently published an article about the importance of climate reporting. It discussed how they're recreating their climate reporting group. Why "recreating"? Well, because back in January 2013, they scrapped their dedicated environmental reporting group:

https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/the-changing-newsroom-environment/

Then they eliminated their DotEarth blog back in March of the same year:

https://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/02/a-farewell-to-green/

Oh, but then they decided to bring back dedicated environmental coverage, gosh, over a month ago!

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/16/insider/a-sea-change-for-climate-coverage.html

After all, in the paper’s own words, “Climate change has long been a critical area of coverage in The Times’s news report", except for a period of four years, when it wasn’t.

They're also using more graphics in their reconstituted environmental reporting, which is fine, except that the leader of the team is a graphic designer, with no scientific background, which might have been nice.

[Doodley]

7. If the climate keeps warming,

we are going to be looking at flood, famine and war on a scale that will be far worse than the devastation of WW2. Why support that? It is time to stop pandering to those who want to be reckless with human lives and our planet. The planet does not belong to them. It belongs to all of us and to future generations who have not been born yet. The deniers tend to be authoritarians who would likely support Trump or the GOP, who incidentally are willing to be reckless with human lives when it comes to other issues, like healthcare or immigration or displaying American might. We should be all working together to find solutions to this problem, not acting as isolationists who dismiss science and dismiss facts, because we think we are somehow superior and have the secret knowledge that means we know better. We have a duty of care to protect our planet and to do all we can to prevent global catastrophe. So, yes, I agree entirely with Augiedog.

[hatrack]

9. Uh . . . .

Also, consider the possibility that Climate Change does get debunked sometime in the future. Many 'known and accepted' scientific facts turned out not to be so as we learn more about the world.

Sheesh, that's the best you've got?.

[jrthin]

12. +1. We own a small engineering firm, and Climate Change is real.

Where did that rising sea level come from?

[Augiedog]

13. I did include an explanation of my action in requesting cancellation. Part of their reply indicated

they would forward my concerns to the appropriate party.

[AngryAmish]

14. The sometime richest man in the world does not need your money.

[Phentex]

16. I do not think you were wrong...

For you, it's personal and I do this sort of thing myself. Others may disagree or even find it irrational but I understand the mentality behind it. Good for you for giving them an explanation.

[n2doc]

18. No, you aren't wrong

You are standing with a lot of scientists and interested citizens against the Times using it's prestige and platform to spew RW lies, likes that will end up getting more people killed and more suffering as action on GW is delayed.

There is no "understanding" provided by mr stevens. Only lies and disinformation.

[frazzled]

19. I don't know.

If it's right for you, it's right. I came to a different decision.

If they had hired Mr. Stephens as a reporter on climate change, I would feel differently. But this is an op-ed column by a conservative. We should not be surprised that the op-ed page feels compelled to represent both liberal and conservative viewpoints. They are views, not reportage. In a sense, the pushback in letters to the editor contesting the content of Stephen's first column (while not denying that climate change is real, questioning the "certainty" of predictions) is valuable in itself: I saw letters from scientists and Harvard professors with strong countervailing arguments. Maybe it's a good way to debunk positions such as his.

At any rate, my point is mostly about this being opinion writing. I've been a Times subscriber for thirty years. The opinion page is not something that I read first or thoroughly anyway. I'll usually scan the newspaper's own editorials (most often on the liberal side and useful in information), and then see if there's a column that looks interesting. Sometimes it's interesting because it's utter bunk with which I disagree. I feel "certain" enough about the knowledge I obtain through many channels to disregard what some columnist is saying. I am sometimes interested to know what they are saying and how they are saying it, just to buttress my own convictions about how wrong their logic is.

Here is how I read the Times over coffee in the morning. I read through the news section, front to back (front page, international news, national news, and then even at times a few things in the New York pages), sometimes reading only a few paragraphs to get the gist, sometimes reading long articles straight through. I always look at the obituaries! They are fascinating. And then, finally, the editorial pages (because they're the last thing in the first section).

I then go to the Arts pages, because I am interested in art and cinema and books (though less so in theater and dance). And then--the creme de la creme--the Crossword. I can't start my day without doing the crossword puzzle.

I'll look at the weekly science pages a bit, but I'm kind of a science dummy. Once in a blue moon there's something that interests me in the business section, but only when it impinges on some political topic. The food section on Wednesdays is always a read (I like to cook). I rarely look at the Style pages, but my husband oddly likes them. He also always reads Metropolitan Diary for laughs.

There is a lot of stuff in the NYT, good bad and indifferent. Not just news and politics, but arts and science and business reporting. And general cultural stuff like style and food. I don't want to give all that up just because they have someone writing a weekly column on the op-ed page. I can ignore an opinion with which I disagree. Or I can use it to oppose that opinion with a letter or comment.

ON EDIT: I meant also to say that when a column or op-ed is included in the editorial pages of a paper, it does not mean that the paper endorses that opinion. Indeed, the Times' editorials are seriously engaged in promoting sound climate science and policies that pertain to it.

[kcr]

21. You are perfectly within your right to do so. Don't listen

to those who are claiming the NYT hire of Bret Stephens is in service to promoting a free exchange of ideas and you just don't like to hear other opinions. That is a cop-out. The Times' op-ed is not an open forum for anyone to express their views. It is curated by the NYT and their choices say something about the viewpoints they wish to highlight and present as important. You are under no obligation to agree with their selection and there's no reason why you can't decide to take your money and attention elsewhere.

The claim this is all about free expression and exchange of ideas falls flat when they then contend you should have to sit there with your eyes propped open and digest all of it. This so called free exchange does not include your freedom to decide whether to participate in it. This freedom only goes one way, it seems. As if everyone is obligated to consume all the media there is, with no choice in the matter. What they're really saying is you're wrong for not enjoying the same media they do.