Generational Tensions Within the New York Times

[UglyCasanova]

You are sensing some ageism? Lol, did you see your post? Did you see the Op's post? This whole thread is about ageism. The issue, however, is that some people see themselves as the victim and not the perpetrator.

Everyone's been paying for your generation for decades. I'll also happily continue to pay for you to mooch off of the government (according to your generation and the people you elect) so you can enjoy the rest of your life.

In fact I've even advocated lowering the retirement age. I'll even pay more in taxes just to get the worst generation out of the picture (economically speaking).

But you are welcome, us punks have no problem taking care of you ungrateful, selfish, hypocritical, snowflakes. We will even stay off your lawns too!

I think you missed the point of the article. It’s not that the old guard feels victimized, but rather they are worried about the dismantling of journalistic norms and realize the ramifications of doing so to the papers reputation.

 

[Moonbeam]

Hayabusa, thank you for that beautiful post. You have written some very insightful things here over time.

Moonbeam, you are correct in your assertion that self hate is almost a universal phenomenon. Question is, even if you do recognize it consciously, how do you deal with it, or manage it?

Indeed he has. As to your question to me, I would have personal to have freed myself from it to say with any real authority, but I can say that because I have tasted it's reality within me, and experiences what I would call dramatic shifts in feeling as a result, I can say I believe self hate is alive and well within me. Also, I was taught the concept by somebody who claimed that he had gotten free, somebody who had relived his past in psychoanalysis back to a very young age, and who claimed he was 99.999% sure that he had rooted it up and was free. And he was like, radiated a vibe, like nobody I have ever met. It was in work with him before his death that I first came in contact with some of that stuff. My first experience was of total disbelief. I coundn't credit that the feelings of sadness I experienced were real. I simply had no idea. Later I felt more deeply into myself and experience enormous rage and that turned to memories of my past. The connections so established between the rage I felt and the cause of them in the past simply made me laugh and laugh. All that anger over nothing.

So, when you see that what you feel is self hate because of direct experience, or believe it theoretically, it changes everything in your point of view and perspective, it changes you attitude toward life. Instead of feeling justification and belief that your enemy is out there, you realize that your enemy is how your feelings are provoked by present events triggering suppressed traumatic events. You cease to believe in your own self righteous and no longer justify your emotional experiences at somebody else's expense. That's about all I can say except to add that the religious experience that goes by many different names that transforms people into saints shall we say, simply steps over those negative feelings by the experience of unity with the Beloved. This can occur I believe via martial arts religious worship, or meditation with sincere practitioners. Wish I could give you a pill, but then, think it also happens sometimes with certain ones. A dangerous path I would say.

 

[jackstar7]

Yep, and if it caved the Grey Lady loses the most valuable asset it has which is a reputation a leading paper of record. Once it goes that’s extrodinarily hard to win back.

I don’t understand what journalism schools are teaching the youth, it seems like the standards are being ignored so that everyone can feel "woke", but the goal should be an impartial reporting of the news and leave the opinions to the op-ed. A good reported does that, reports.

It’s refreshing to read the last part though that the editor isn’t caving.

How many journalism classes did you take? How many papers have you worked for?

I ask because you don't seem to have any idea what journalism is.

 

[TheGreatBigDog]

Do yourself a favor, and read the entire, relatively short article. Sure, it's appreciably longer than a tweet, but, hey, challenge yourself!

I could try to give you a synopsis, and/or I could comb through it and excerpt enough parts to give you a good idea. I could also cut your meat for you at your next meal. I'm not in the mood to do any of that. And, yes, I well know that this means any number of your will respond and opine in ways that will show you only read enough to acquire a shallow misinterpretation of the situation. Sigh. So be it.

What I will do is give you a quote from the article that largely represents my take on this matter:



Have at me, young 'uns, just please do both of us the favor of taking time from your other many important pursuits to read the entire article before you do.

As John Steinbeck once purportedly said, "Don't pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he'll just kill you."

NY Times is passe anyways, what goes on there is moot.

 

[UglyCasanova]

How many journalism classes did you take? How many papers have you worked for?

I ask because you don't seem to have any idea what journalism is.

What have I said that’s incorrect

 

[Starbuck1975]

How many journalism classes did you take? How many papers have you worked for?

I ask because you don't seem to have any idea what journalism is.

Are you a journalist?

 

[brycejones]

NY Times is passe anyways, what goes on there is moot.

WWYBYWB?

 

[DAPUNISHER]

WWYBYWB?

Fairly certain it is John Connor again. He loves it here, and the game of whack a troll continues.

 

[vi edit]

Is my age showing? WTF is the "woke crowd"?

 

[Starbuck1975]

Is my age showing? WTF is the "woke crowd"?

This short promotional video will explain everything you need to know

 

[jackstar7]

Are you a journalist?

I was for a time. Not currently.

 

[jackstar7]

What have I said that’s incorrect

Should I infer that you've had no journalistic training then? That's what you're implying by not answering my question.

 

[vi edit]

This short promotional video will explain everything you need to know

Hippy, glam, goth, grunge, emo, hipster, woke...ect. So it's just another alternative youth culture. Got it.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Hippy, glam, goth, grunge, emo, hipster, woke...ect. So it's just another alternative youth culture. Got it.

Grunge is youth culture? It's almost ubiquitous in upstate NY

 

[Starbuck1975]

I was for a time. Not currently.

Then my guess is you have an interesting and relevant perspective to share on the position taken by the NYT’s editors.

 

[Jaskalas]

It’s refreshing to read the last part though that the editor isn’t caving.

Yeah, until he's replaced.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Grunge is youth culture? It's almost ubiquitous in upstate NY

And we're damned proud of it!

 

[interchange]

In one of my psychoanalytic classes, we were discussing the history of exclusion that the field has. It started as a Jewish old-guard Europe at a time where Jews were second-class citizens and found its way to America and subsequently dominance in the field of mental health largely as Jewish analysts fled the Holocaust. You can say what you will about the offensive and regressive theory of early psychoanalysts, but if you put it in historical context these were people that were extremely liberal and progressive in that regard. And they were people who were recipients of severe oppression.

So you might expect that these most enlightened people of their time who had intimate experience with oppression would have the most fertile empathetic grounds to break free of this oppressive cycle, right? Well, in reality they became highly discriminatory and elitist and relished their reversal of fortune.

In fact, this is common. People who have the most familiar experience with being treated unfairly are actually often quite shut off to recognizing analogous experience in people they don't directly identify with, and if given opportunity to seize power over that group will do so. Personally, I think that those people whose identities are intimately connected to a sense of being discriminated against have more to lose in recognizing their own discrimination. It threatens to expose themselves as hypocrites and to potential recognize another as more deserving of the throne of most persecuted.

I think the younger generation identifies with a much more egalitarian sense of communal social justice and inclusion that extends to all society rather than specific member institutions. In that identification, they witness and face significant discrimination against this value on a regular basis. However, there seems to be a moral imperative in many where witnessing someone act against the egalitarian ideal in any way is associated with evil -- instead of either compromise between competing ideals or human imperfection. This leads to an outcasting of all members of society who do not prioritize inclusion. Ironically, those are the people who are safe to exclude from the inclusive society.

But that's mainly just a shift of values which is natural over time. It is developmentally appropriate and expected for older people to grow more tolerant and appreciative of change over time and to function to maintain the value of traditional pillars. And it is expected of young people to be generative and push against traditional values often missing perspective.

I think the challenge in society is a shared one. We are far too exacting with our sense of right and wrong and expectations of behaviors. We have high standards (whether they be traditional moral standards or egalitarian notions) and thus negatively judge those who inevitably fail to meet our expectations. More importantly, we do not appreciate diversity of values the way we appreciate diversity of race, gender, etc. For some reason, society cannot see that it is important for people to be able to be morally wrong so long as their actions are not oppressive, and even then that society's job is not to exclude moral deviance in belief but rather in action. This is not to say that society should not make moral judgments. They certainly can and should. However, they ought to refrain from acting to restrain expression of moral badness in the form of speech. They certainly can and should condemn it. But I think we are too full of ourselves anyway. There is only so much we can actually control, and we miss our opportunity to advance cooperative societal progress due to real but sometimes unreasonable expectations of responsibility resting solely with the other.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

In one of my psychoanalytic classes, we were discussing the history of exclusion that the field has. It started as a Jewish old-guard Europe at a time where Jews were second-class citizens and found its way to America and subsequently dominance in the field of mental health largely as Jewish analysts fled the Holocaust. You can say what you will about the offensive and regressive theory of early psychoanalysts, but if you put it in historical context these were people that were extremely liberal and progressive in that regard. And they were people who were recipients of severe oppression.

So you might expect that these most enlightened people of their time who had intimate experience with oppression would have the most fertile empathetic grounds to break free of this oppressive cycle, right? Well, in reality they became highly discriminatory and elitist and relished their reversal of fortune.

In fact, this is common. People who have the most familiar experience with being treated unfairly are actually often quite shut off to recognizing analogous experience in people they don't directly identify with, and if given opportunity to seize power over that group will do so. Personally, I think that those people whose identities are intimately connected to a sense of being discriminated against have more to lose in recognizing their own discrimination. It threatens to expose themselves as hypocrites and to potential recognize another as more deserving of the throne of most persecuted.

I think the younger generation identifies with a much more egalitarian sense of communal social justice and inclusion that extends to all society rather than specific member institutions. In that identification, they witness and face significant discrimination against this value on a regular basis. However, there seems to be a moral imperative in many where witnessing someone act against the egalitarian ideal in any way is associated with evil -- instead of either compromise between competing ideals or human imperfection. This leads to an outcasting of all members of society who do not prioritize inclusion. Ironically, those are the people who are safe to exclude from the inclusive society.

But that's mainly just a shift of values which is natural over time. It is developmentally appropriate and expected for older people to grow more tolerant and appreciative of change over time and to function to maintain the value of traditional pillars. And it is expected of young people to be generative and push against traditional values often missing perspective.

I think the challenge in society is a shared one. We are far too exacting with our sense of right and wrong and expectations of behaviors. We have high standards (whether they be traditional moral standards or egalitarian notions) and thus negatively judge those who inevitably fail to meet our expectations. More importantly, we do not appreciate diversity of values the way we appreciate diversity of race, gender, etc. For some reason, society cannot see that it is important for people to be able to be morally wrong so long as their actions are not oppressive, and even then that society's job is not to exclude moral deviance in belief but rather in action. This is not to say that society should not make moral judgments. They certainly can and should. However, they ought to refrain from acting to restrain expression of moral badness in the form of speech. They certainly can and should condemn it. But I think we are too full of ourselves anyway. There is only so much we can actually control, and we miss our opportunity to advance cooperative societal progress due to real but sometimes unreasonable expectations of responsibility resting solely with the other.

It is far easier to blame everyone else. This is proven time and again and the best means to preserve a worldview is a lack of examination of the world and one's self.

To quote a David Bowie lyric "I don't want knowledge, I want certainty". Why? Because created and unexamined certainty provides validation of self. I put forward our current President as an example.

 

[interchange]

It is far easier to blame everyone else. This is proven time and again and the best means to preserve a worldview is a lack of examination of the world and one's self.

To quote a David Bowie lyric "I don't want knowledge, I want certainty". Why? Because created and unexamined certainty provides validation of self. I put forward our current President as an example.

That is the least anxiety provoking state, yet we also see people driven to self-examination and evaluation and challenge of norms. When we find them valuable, those people are heralded as our greatest contributors (though often having to overcome great detraction to get there).

In Bowie-speak, I want knowledge and I want certainty.

 

[jackstar7]

Since UC won't speak to his lack of understanding, I will say that journalism is not solely about reporting. That's irresponsible. Journalism is about reporting WITH interpretation and context.

 

[Moonbeam]

That is the least anxiety provoking state, yet we also see people driven to self-examination and evaluation and challenge of norms. When we find them valuable, those people are heralded as our greatest contributors (though often having to overcome great detraction to get there).

In Bowie-speak, I want knowledge and I want certainty.

For some reason that made me think of what my father used to say, that people in hell want ice water.

A question that I had while reading your posts here was that they represent something like how I see things, sort of a variation of we create what we fear which also means we become what we hate. My hope would be that the objective view you presented, objective at least, I assume in your opinion and for sure in mine, is not one to which some emotional bias of our own is attached. Because, what I wondered was, if that opinion were to become mainstream, I wonder what unconscious negative effects it could engender. Is there a truth that one can safely stand on, a fulcrum point as it were.

 

[interchange]

For some reason that made me think of what my father used to say, that people in hell want ice water.

A question that I had while reading your posts here was that they represent something like how I see things, sort of a variation of we create what we fear which also means we become what we hate. My hope would be that the objective view you presented, objective at least, I assume in your opinion and for sure in mine, is not one to which some emotional bias of our own is attached. Because, what I wondered was, if that opinion were to become mainstream, I wonder what unconscious negative effects it could engender. Is there a truth that one can safely stand on, a fulcrum point as it were.

Hmmm. You might read about the notion of intersubjectivity and third spaces. But what I believe is that we ought not to imagine the best world as one of universal agreement on values, morality, rules, etc. Instead, we need for everyone to maintain their own subjectivity. But rigid individualism doesn't function in society as it quickly degenerates into choosing whose subjectivity is the correct one. Instead, I think we need to be better at creating third spaces. A space where individuals can collaborate and co-create that allows negotiation of values, ideas, and the rules in which we agree to follow for society. If such a thing is successful, then individuals will automatically grow from these exchanges, taking back from that 3rd space into their own subjectivity what provides greater meaning and function to them. But -- crucially -- engagement in a 3rd space requires that there be no demands that either party actually do such a thing. We must instead engage with a minimum expectation of "agree to disagree" and hope for better. Even if some compromise on rules is made out of the exchange, it musn't be required that someone believe those rules are correct. The only expectation is that they agree to follow them.

So to address your comments more directly... My perspective is not objective and neither is yours. It is possible by engaging together one or both of us will take from the discussion something that helps us make better sense of our individual perspectives. Even if we stick with who we are, we might yet find a middle ground that allows us to interact with each other in a constructive way. Even if that middle ground doesn't match what either of us believes, our engagement in it doesn't threaten our individual right to our beliefs. We may only modify them if we feel it helpful to do so.

 

[Jaskalas]

Since UC won't speak to his lack of understanding, I will say that journalism is not solely about reporting. That's irresponsible. Journalism is about reporting WITH interpretation and context.

To reach a point, and forgive me for being uncertain of where you stand, should traditional journalism be replaced by Fox News styled op-ed "entertainment"? That's sort of what I'm thinking of with the "interpretation and context" in relation to this subject of the New York Times. The "old guard" want to safe guard journalistic integrity, while the "youth" wonder why they're not on the front lines pushing progress. Does the end justify the means?

I caution that we should beware the destination of such fervor. It's often not something we can imagine nor enjoy.

Maintaining the integrity of Journalism would help quell a bloodthirsty response when our people put down Trumpism.

 

[jackstar7]

To reach a point, and forgive me for being uncertain of where you stand, should traditional journalism be replaced by Fox News styled op-ed "entertainment"? That's sort of what I'm thinking of with the "interpretation and context" in relation to this subject of the New York Times. The "old guard" want to safe guard journalistic integrity, while the "youth" wonder why they're not on the front lines pushing progress. Does the end justify the means?

I caution that we should beware the destination of such fervor. It's often not something we can imagine nor enjoy.

What? No. Why would you jump to that?

Did you not grow up with the nightly news and the daily paper? You have never just been given facts (until maybe recently) and even then you're only given the stories that an editor deems newsworthy.

Shep Smith is maybe the sole bastion of this tradition operating at any level on Fox News. He doesn't just report facts, he explains things and provides context. He expands on a story to help the audience understand it.

I'm not here to take a side in the Times evolution or lack thereof, but it worried me to see people talking about journalism as though it is just a delivery of data points. We call them stories for a reason.