"When conservatives accuse the NYT of various biases, I often tell them that the biggest “bias” there is not a liberal one or a Democratic one or an urban one. Rather the bias that matters most is that inherent to being an elite institution, one that has become subject to all of the status and credentialing demands that have swallowed elite American institutions. It’s a smart kid bias, a front-of-the-class kid bias."
True, as far as it goes, but, the "urban" party, the "smart front row kid party" happens to be Team D, which also happens to be the political manifestation of the PMC, which is in turn the hegemonic class.
Yes, but it can be challenging to describe elites' behavior to outsiders because so much of it seems in conflict with itself. One might easily say: How can this paper both be so biased and be so heavy handed with fact checking? And the answer is that none of these things are done because of Team D ideals per se, but rather because of self-serving motives, and the elite people at these institutions will do whatever they can in the moment to preserve and advance themselves. Which is all to say, they probably do all vote Team D, but none of these people have internalized Team D ideals into their own deep seated behaviors. Its just something to discuss over fancy dinners to appear to be the right kind of person.
Because the PMC is the hegemonic class, PMC values are by definition normative and are believed no more to need fact-checking than, say, "water is wet" or "2+2=4"
You may be right, but there’s a history there. Back in the fabled Bronze Age the honor society always seemed to include some malcontents, free spirits, weirdos and freaks, or at least people with such tendencies. Now The Honor Society has been purged of all but the obsessive grinds, and an entire generation has fallen in line with an ethos that used to come in for well-deserved ridicule: in Century 21 the men in the gray flannel suits have morphed into something more comprehensively refined, more urbane, and more obsessive. That’s my take anyway. From the ranks of kids getting demerits for not wearing the right gym clothes.
I agree strongly that lots of editing is way over-sanding. I appreciate a lot of it and have been in experiences where I wanted to lose my mind but realized the process was working. (However in most of those processes, we could have arrived there sooner with more early conversation and more agreement about outcome.) Doing the Big Edit just once is respectful and more helpful. Editing forever is torture especially at most current pay rates and is also wasteful of the publication’s time.
I have more to say about the NYT but I won’t! I will say there was a culture in the previous regime at Opinions where columnists were extremely unaccountable and did whatever they liked and a better direction was necessary. But this isn’t that.
I'm not exactly sure *when* it became de rigueur for America's surplus elites to all talk and write exactly the same way, but there's no denying that it's happening. It's the linguistic equivalent of a beige mush. Not only are the messages themselves drearily homogenous, the way the messaging is crafted and deliver is, too. It's practically indistinguishable from ChatGPT output extruded through Strunk and White.
A very large part of Donald Trump's appeal for many people is exactly that he *doesn't* do this, and indeed, seems to speak straight from his id at all times.
Similar situation going on in publishing, which Freddie has written about. I’ve read a bunch of popular America fiction in the last couple years and most of the new voices seem stylistically similar.
Contrast that with 1985-1992: Cormac McCarthy, Kazuo Ishiguro, Denis Johnson and Haruki Marakumi all published their first big novels and I don’t think I’m just being nostalgic — the amount of variance in their styles is just so huge.
As a side note: can anyone recommend a newly published American fiction writer who’s doing something interesting stylistically?
>> "...people with the most sterling meritocrat resumes, an implicit ideology. Such people tend to be ruthless in the pursuit of their personal glory but also born rule-followers, grade-grubbers always ready to appeal to or defer to authority as the moment demands, especially when advancement is on the line."
I've realized that, in thinking about the failures of elite institutions, I have a mental block when this point is made. I don't actually doubt it — it makes logical sense. I think my block comes that it feels like I'm making a stereotype of a class of people I don't have much personal experience with, and I'm constitutionally loathe to do that when I can't provide evidence.
Frankly, I *want* to believe that elite institutions are ruled by sheeple, and that's what makes me worried.
I know, of course, that in some way this entire Paul Krugman story is probably evidence of this! (I also recognize that I'm doing something frighteningly similar to the NYT editor who asked for a source on the Star Wars fandom statement.) But if anyone could point me to evidence that elites are disproportionately rule-followers and grade-grubbers always ready to defer to authority, I think it might help me see the world more clearly.
I think evidence for this might be hard to come by, but I think if the language is toned down (sorry Freddie!) and put into more neutral terms, say, that elites tend to conform to top-down pressures and are high academic achievers, it might make this claim more palatable. Rule-followers and grade grubbers has a negative sentiment attached to them, which might conjure the kinds of "emotional " responses that might get in the way of evaluating the claim.
I suppose, however, that if we had data, including GPAs and the names of institutions these so called elites graduated from, would that be enough? Maybe also some testimony from folks that worked with them, professors and bosses and colleagues? As I understand it, it's epistemologically impossible to use empirical evidence to "prove" that an individual holds a particular ideology, so as, one has to infer through actions, stated beliefs, and some kind of triangulation. And inevitably there will be some exceptions, so the generalization about elites or whoever is always going to have some degree of plausible deniability.
Anecdotally, as someone who has taught at a range of higher ed institutions, some that are considered elite, I can say generally that the students at these institutions, as well as faculty, tend to be hyper aware of status and the systems that one move through to increase status, more so than in institutions where students are simply trying to get credentialed so that they can get jobs. I've literally had a (more professionally successful) friend say to me, when I was resisting a journal's requirement that I provide pronouns, that he was a "conformist" and so would go along with what they were asking for. And speaking of conformity, I then supplied some pronouns, being the "elite" academic that I am.
"Anecdotally, as someone who has taught at a range of higher ed institutions, some that are considered elite, I can say generally that the students at these institutions, as well as faculty, tend to be hyper aware of status and the systems that one move through to increase status, more so than in institutions where students are simply trying to get credentialed so that they can get jobs."
We can shut down the comments thread. This is the winning insight.
I was an editor for many years. Too many editors believe their job includes changing the writer's viewpoint, or tone. In other words, the editor wants to be the writer.
A good editor helps the writer sound as good as they can, as clear as they can, within the context of the piece. When an editor is good, the writer says "thank you." Not "WTF did you do to my piece?"
I like Krugman enough that I followed him to his Substack. And I happen to be rich enough to be able to pay for it. But this is clearly not a sustainable model. You don't want a country where only overpaid professionals can afford to read.
I couldn't help but wonder if the editing became more heavy-handed because the dude just couldn't stop scolding people for not being in love with the economy during Biden's term.
There has never been a more faithful adherent of demand side zombie Keynesianism than Paul Krugman. I've never seen the "broken window" fallacy treated with such reverence by any other person. It's almost like he was created in a lab in the basement of the Brookings Institution.
"Need an economic boost? How about a housing bubble? Oh, the bubble burst? How about a trillion dollars of government stimulus spending? Wait, did I say one trillion? Not big enough! Make it two! And while we're at it, why not start another world war? Just think about - it'll drop unemployment to zero!"
Remember when people used to laugh at the Austrian school dorks and the supply siders of the Reagan era? Nobody's laughing now that we're in the Keynesian economic endgame.
I honestly don't think a lot of people are even aware of the various schools of economic thought. I certainly didn't, until recently—I sort of blame(d) myself, but I suppose it also is just a function of being in a media bubble like everyone else. I wrote a letter to Jon Stewart this effect just this week, if anyone's interested.
This is something that concerns me - the atomization of news media.
Similar to entertainment media, it's becoming quite expensive to get the same quantity and quality of content since before the millennium. Simply being nominally informed about most things is not nearly as affordable as it once was. Say what you want about physical newspapers, everyone could afford them back in the day.
This is what makes no sense to me about the modern media business. Previously to run a large newspaper you had to have factories with huge pressing machines to print it. You had to buy massive amounts of paper. You had to have all your stories edited and set out for printing before you started a print run without any word processing software. You had to pay people to deliver it to sellers or direct to customers, and those sellers took a cut.
Now all you have to do is upload it to the internet, and you're telling me you can't make money?
The shitrag NYT gave up all claims to "hyper-competence" during their post-9/11 jingoism period. Russiagate and their pathetic COVID coverage only cemented the reality of their incompetence.
Nice piece - great analogy as a framework. A few thoughts - there is clearly a shake up among the columnists at NYT and something incoherent about newsletters, but I think the real news is that they are getting rid of the lightning rods. What do Paul K and Pamela P have in common? The intense anger they evoke.
Gail C and Bret S do comic Q and As. Kristophe’s heart bleeds. Nobody reads Dowd or Friedman anymore. The Right wingers are all never Trump and only David French is even slightly interesting.
Krugman was going to Krugman and get them Charlie Hebdoed by MAGA. Plus, after 20 years about being right about inflation not being a risk, in the 21st year we had some inflation. Who can stand such a track record? Pamela Paul was going to cause all the young Trans staff to burn the building down or worse cause lots of meetings with HR.
And for historical context, Krugman was among the first and most prominent of those who fought to say “the President spoke and lied today.” Not about Trump or Iraq, but about Bush II’s social security plan, which fell afoul of basic yet incontrovertible truths of math.
He wasn't right for 20 years about inflation...unless you're only counting Upper Middle Class and above. For anyone making over six figures, inflation was pretty much a non-factor in that time frame.
The problem with that is 80% of the country doesn't make that much, which is odd considering Krugman has had a lot to say about the plight of the poor. Ask anyone who makes the medium income from 2000-2020 if inflation has drastically affected their finances or not. You won't get many 'meh's. How he doesn't see this is very strange.
I agree that the NYTimes has an elite bias. But I’d add that it is an elite liberal arts bias, ignorant of math and statistics, constantly trying to historicize everything, suspicious of technology in a way that only writers can be, and endlessly smug about it.
I’ve been wondering why Pamela Paul got fired (no, I don’t think it’s because of her views on trans issues—Ross Douthat is still there.) Perhaps this hints at the reason. She seems like she’d be very disagreeable during a nightmare editing process.
Douthat, perhaps because of his background, is gold at writing to the NYT standard. While reliably prompting unfocused venom from the people who bother with their tedious comment section, he's so anodyne that it only makes those commenters seem more unhinged.
And his entry into the "alternative" medical world, along with his spiritual sort of Christianity, a throwback to hazy 70s/80s Protestantism despite his Catholic conversion (I think?) lends him a "side" that can hardly be gainsaid by an NYT that so endorses "feelings" depending on the identity of the feeler, and nap power, and astrology and self-care and demonic hair-touching.
I met him once and he was effortlessly charming. Despite seldom having been able to read far into modern fantasy successfully, I subscribe to his serialized fantasy novel, which took some chutzpah to put out there eyes wide shut in what seems to be an unfinished state, just as he last left the manuscript, typos and all. I don't think it's just the serialization aspect that has led me to be kinda excited when the latest installment appears in my email.
[Note in case he reads this substack: while reading it I more than once thought of the advice - can't recall who delivered it - Cyril Connolly? though that doesn't sound quite right - that in a work of imagination one should avoid overloading the reader with many pages of "history", replete with names, with back matter. (Tolkein excepted?) It starts to feel like homework that has no payoff; or indeed, if you had no sterling education and never really did any homework, it can lead to the thought that - maybe I should be reading the history of an actual empire? Like, uh, the ... Timurid or something?]
But I never read his column, and not because of the NYT paywall. Nor any of his colleagues, of course.
That just goes to show the power of the NYT to neuter, even someone who plays the game so well he surely requires little editing.
I read Douthat a couple years back giving credence to the "chronic Lyme" hoax, and thought, "he's found it, the one kind of kooky alternative medicine that will still work with the Times readership." Californians have woo-woo alt-medicine for eccentric weirdos with high openness, while New Englanders have alt-medicine tailored for neurotic hypochondriacs in their late 40s with a bunch of money to burn.
Can't say about others but I definitely don't think he's a hypochondriac. I imagine in an age of medical wonders (albeit ones that both enhance life and take away from it) it's just hard to live with the firm "no" to the question of whether we understand autoimmune illness at the present time.
As someone who agrees with virtually nothing Douthat writes (at least as far as his conclusions go) I still feel that he's by far the most interesting Op-Ed writer for the Times. I enjoy reading him immensely.
Anyone who has written for publication anyplace more august then the neighborhood newsletter likely has editor stories. In my experience, it is usually a problem of youth, young people wanting to do a good job, yes, but wanting to make a mark of some kind, without the benefits of age or experience--benefits, of course, that young people typically find hard to appreciate.
Krugman and Paul essentially walked off the job at the NYTimes. The crushed Democratic Party doubling down on identity politics by enforcing rigid gender/trans requirements for their leadership and establishing a Muslim caucus. Vance goes to Germany for his first big policy address to criticize Germans for keeping neo-Nazi parties out of government. The richest man in the world assumes management of the US government to methodically eliminate any trace of neutral expertise while gleefully signaling support of the alt-right.....
To paraphrase that ominous quote - "the lights are going out, all over the world."
No, JD Vance told them that draconian laws forbidding and/or punishing speech, in addition to being completely ineffective, are also deeply contrary to the values America wants to promote at home and abroad. And he's completely, 100%, correct.
The idea that allowing speech causes fascism is one of the many stupidities that have sunk the progressive brand. Perhaps it wouldn't kill progressives if they stopped mindlessly supporting literally everything their current Two Minutes Hate figure on the right opposes.
"The idea that allowing speech causes fascism is one of the many stupidities that have sunk the progressive brand."
Along with the none-too-subtle subtext that, needless to say, We The Enlightened Ones should be the ones who get to decide which speehc is permitted and what will get the speaker tossed in the stockade.
At some point in my IT career at a Fortune 10, I realized that the auditors were always going to find things, because it is their job to audit, and they aren't going to spend weeks looking at your solution only to say "all good." They have to justify their jobs. You learn to play that game, but the wasted time is frustrating. Sounds like editor and auditors would get along.
This is true of SO many positions, I think. Attorneys? I've married into a family of attorneys. Nice people. Smart people. But no attorney is going to tell you that anything is 'fine.' They don't matter if they're not able to tell you that there is some concern you're not aware of, and they will charge you for it. It's not their fault (or the auditors). It's incentives. It's always incentives.
"When conservatives accuse the NYT of various biases, I often tell them that the biggest “bias” there is not a liberal one or a Democratic one or an urban one. Rather the bias that matters most is that inherent to being an elite institution, one that has become subject to all of the status and credentialing demands that have swallowed elite American institutions. It’s a smart kid bias, a front-of-the-class kid bias."
True, as far as it goes, but, the "urban" party, the "smart front row kid party" happens to be Team D, which also happens to be the political manifestation of the PMC, which is in turn the hegemonic class.
Yes, but it can be challenging to describe elites' behavior to outsiders because so much of it seems in conflict with itself. One might easily say: How can this paper both be so biased and be so heavy handed with fact checking? And the answer is that none of these things are done because of Team D ideals per se, but rather because of self-serving motives, and the elite people at these institutions will do whatever they can in the moment to preserve and advance themselves. Which is all to say, they probably do all vote Team D, but none of these people have internalized Team D ideals into their own deep seated behaviors. Its just something to discuss over fancy dinners to appear to be the right kind of person.
Because the PMC is the hegemonic class, PMC values are by definition normative and are believed no more to need fact-checking than, say, "water is wet" or "2+2=4"
Why no... they are "progressives"... committed to opposition to "the man"!
Along with the NYT, the WaPo, the CIA, the FBI, thr NSA and pretty much every major corporation.
You may be right, but there’s a history there. Back in the fabled Bronze Age the honor society always seemed to include some malcontents, free spirits, weirdos and freaks, or at least people with such tendencies. Now The Honor Society has been purged of all but the obsessive grinds, and an entire generation has fallen in line with an ethos that used to come in for well-deserved ridicule: in Century 21 the men in the gray flannel suits have morphed into something more comprehensively refined, more urbane, and more obsessive. That’s my take anyway. From the ranks of kids getting demerits for not wearing the right gym clothes.
Smart, but very much not too smart, which I think describes the Krugman situation effectively. More Gemini smart than Claude smart
Also, worth pointing out that one of the drivers of reality TV is that it is cheaper to make than the traditional flavors on the box.
I agree strongly that lots of editing is way over-sanding. I appreciate a lot of it and have been in experiences where I wanted to lose my mind but realized the process was working. (However in most of those processes, we could have arrived there sooner with more early conversation and more agreement about outcome.) Doing the Big Edit just once is respectful and more helpful. Editing forever is torture especially at most current pay rates and is also wasteful of the publication’s time.
I have more to say about the NYT but I won’t! I will say there was a culture in the previous regime at Opinions where columnists were extremely unaccountable and did whatever they liked and a better direction was necessary. But this isn’t that.
I'm not exactly sure *when* it became de rigueur for America's surplus elites to all talk and write exactly the same way, but there's no denying that it's happening. It's the linguistic equivalent of a beige mush. Not only are the messages themselves drearily homogenous, the way the messaging is crafted and deliver is, too. It's practically indistinguishable from ChatGPT output extruded through Strunk and White.
A very large part of Donald Trump's appeal for many people is exactly that he *doesn't* do this, and indeed, seems to speak straight from his id at all times.
Similar situation going on in publishing, which Freddie has written about. I’ve read a bunch of popular America fiction in the last couple years and most of the new voices seem stylistically similar.
Contrast that with 1985-1992: Cormac McCarthy, Kazuo Ishiguro, Denis Johnson and Haruki Marakumi all published their first big novels and I don’t think I’m just being nostalgic — the amount of variance in their styles is just so huge.
As a side note: can anyone recommend a newly published American fiction writer who’s doing something interesting stylistically?
>> "...people with the most sterling meritocrat resumes, an implicit ideology. Such people tend to be ruthless in the pursuit of their personal glory but also born rule-followers, grade-grubbers always ready to appeal to or defer to authority as the moment demands, especially when advancement is on the line."
I've realized that, in thinking about the failures of elite institutions, I have a mental block when this point is made. I don't actually doubt it — it makes logical sense. I think my block comes that it feels like I'm making a stereotype of a class of people I don't have much personal experience with, and I'm constitutionally loathe to do that when I can't provide evidence.
Frankly, I *want* to believe that elite institutions are ruled by sheeple, and that's what makes me worried.
I know, of course, that in some way this entire Paul Krugman story is probably evidence of this! (I also recognize that I'm doing something frighteningly similar to the NYT editor who asked for a source on the Star Wars fandom statement.) But if anyone could point me to evidence that elites are disproportionately rule-followers and grade-grubbers always ready to defer to authority, I think it might help me see the world more clearly.
I think evidence for this might be hard to come by, but I think if the language is toned down (sorry Freddie!) and put into more neutral terms, say, that elites tend to conform to top-down pressures and are high academic achievers, it might make this claim more palatable. Rule-followers and grade grubbers has a negative sentiment attached to them, which might conjure the kinds of "emotional " responses that might get in the way of evaluating the claim.
I suppose, however, that if we had data, including GPAs and the names of institutions these so called elites graduated from, would that be enough? Maybe also some testimony from folks that worked with them, professors and bosses and colleagues? As I understand it, it's epistemologically impossible to use empirical evidence to "prove" that an individual holds a particular ideology, so as, one has to infer through actions, stated beliefs, and some kind of triangulation. And inevitably there will be some exceptions, so the generalization about elites or whoever is always going to have some degree of plausible deniability.
Anecdotally, as someone who has taught at a range of higher ed institutions, some that are considered elite, I can say generally that the students at these institutions, as well as faculty, tend to be hyper aware of status and the systems that one move through to increase status, more so than in institutions where students are simply trying to get credentialed so that they can get jobs. I've literally had a (more professionally successful) friend say to me, when I was resisting a journal's requirement that I provide pronouns, that he was a "conformist" and so would go along with what they were asking for. And speaking of conformity, I then supplied some pronouns, being the "elite" academic that I am.
"Anecdotally, as someone who has taught at a range of higher ed institutions, some that are considered elite, I can say generally that the students at these institutions, as well as faculty, tend to be hyper aware of status and the systems that one move through to increase status, more so than in institutions where students are simply trying to get credentialed so that they can get jobs."
We can shut down the comments thread. This is the winning insight.
I would have given them the wrong pronouns. Fuck that.
I was an editor for many years. Too many editors believe their job includes changing the writer's viewpoint, or tone. In other words, the editor wants to be the writer.
A good editor helps the writer sound as good as they can, as clear as they can, within the context of the piece. When an editor is good, the writer says "thank you." Not "WTF did you do to my piece?"
I like Krugman enough that I followed him to his Substack. And I happen to be rich enough to be able to pay for it. But this is clearly not a sustainable model. You don't want a country where only overpaid professionals can afford to read.
I wonder how many more pieces he'll write about how stupid the voter base is for not liking the current economy?
I couldn't help but wonder if the editing became more heavy-handed because the dude just couldn't stop scolding people for not being in love with the economy during Biden's term.
There has never been a more faithful adherent of demand side zombie Keynesianism than Paul Krugman. I've never seen the "broken window" fallacy treated with such reverence by any other person. It's almost like he was created in a lab in the basement of the Brookings Institution.
"Need an economic boost? How about a housing bubble? Oh, the bubble burst? How about a trillion dollars of government stimulus spending? Wait, did I say one trillion? Not big enough! Make it two! And while we're at it, why not start another world war? Just think about - it'll drop unemployment to zero!"
Remember when people used to laugh at the Austrian school dorks and the supply siders of the Reagan era? Nobody's laughing now that we're in the Keynesian economic endgame.
I honestly don't think a lot of people are even aware of the various schools of economic thought. I certainly didn't, until recently—I sort of blame(d) myself, but I suppose it also is just a function of being in a media bubble like everyone else. I wrote a letter to Jon Stewart this effect just this week, if anyone's interested.
https://allisongustavson.substack.com/p/as-trump-vomits-on-the-carpet-of
He can always make his Substack entirely free. Or most of his content, with paywall only applied to certain pieces.
That's what he's done. Most is free.
This is something that concerns me - the atomization of news media.
Similar to entertainment media, it's becoming quite expensive to get the same quantity and quality of content since before the millennium. Simply being nominally informed about most things is not nearly as affordable as it once was. Say what you want about physical newspapers, everyone could afford them back in the day.
This is what makes no sense to me about the modern media business. Previously to run a large newspaper you had to have factories with huge pressing machines to print it. You had to buy massive amounts of paper. You had to have all your stories edited and set out for printing before you started a print run without any word processing software. You had to pay people to deliver it to sellers or direct to customers, and those sellers took a cut.
Now all you have to do is upload it to the internet, and you're telling me you can't make money?
Ads were remarkably lucrative.
The shitrag NYT gave up all claims to "hyper-competence" during their post-9/11 jingoism period. Russiagate and their pathetic COVID coverage only cemented the reality of their incompetence.
What are the publications you do not think are shitrags based on your standards?
Nice piece - great analogy as a framework. A few thoughts - there is clearly a shake up among the columnists at NYT and something incoherent about newsletters, but I think the real news is that they are getting rid of the lightning rods. What do Paul K and Pamela P have in common? The intense anger they evoke.
Gail C and Bret S do comic Q and As. Kristophe’s heart bleeds. Nobody reads Dowd or Friedman anymore. The Right wingers are all never Trump and only David French is even slightly interesting.
Krugman was going to Krugman and get them Charlie Hebdoed by MAGA. Plus, after 20 years about being right about inflation not being a risk, in the 21st year we had some inflation. Who can stand such a track record? Pamela Paul was going to cause all the young Trans staff to burn the building down or worse cause lots of meetings with HR.
And for historical context, Krugman was among the first and most prominent of those who fought to say “the President spoke and lied today.” Not about Trump or Iraq, but about Bush II’s social security plan, which fell afoul of basic yet incontrovertible truths of math.
And BTW there’s a typo in your piece.
He wasn't right for 20 years about inflation...unless you're only counting Upper Middle Class and above. For anyone making over six figures, inflation was pretty much a non-factor in that time frame.
The problem with that is 80% of the country doesn't make that much, which is odd considering Krugman has had a lot to say about the plight of the poor. Ask anyone who makes the medium income from 2000-2020 if inflation has drastically affected their finances or not. You won't get many 'meh's. How he doesn't see this is very strange.
I agree that the NYTimes has an elite bias. But I’d add that it is an elite liberal arts bias, ignorant of math and statistics, constantly trying to historicize everything, suspicious of technology in a way that only writers can be, and endlessly smug about it.
Sort of like how most popular music critics are English Lit majors, not music performance.
I’ve been wondering why Pamela Paul got fired (no, I don’t think it’s because of her views on trans issues—Ross Douthat is still there.) Perhaps this hints at the reason. She seems like she’d be very disagreeable during a nightmare editing process.
Douthat, perhaps because of his background, is gold at writing to the NYT standard. While reliably prompting unfocused venom from the people who bother with their tedious comment section, he's so anodyne that it only makes those commenters seem more unhinged.
And his entry into the "alternative" medical world, along with his spiritual sort of Christianity, a throwback to hazy 70s/80s Protestantism despite his Catholic conversion (I think?) lends him a "side" that can hardly be gainsaid by an NYT that so endorses "feelings" depending on the identity of the feeler, and nap power, and astrology and self-care and demonic hair-touching.
I met him once and he was effortlessly charming. Despite seldom having been able to read far into modern fantasy successfully, I subscribe to his serialized fantasy novel, which took some chutzpah to put out there eyes wide shut in what seems to be an unfinished state, just as he last left the manuscript, typos and all. I don't think it's just the serialization aspect that has led me to be kinda excited when the latest installment appears in my email.
[Note in case he reads this substack: while reading it I more than once thought of the advice - can't recall who delivered it - Cyril Connolly? though that doesn't sound quite right - that in a work of imagination one should avoid overloading the reader with many pages of "history", replete with names, with back matter. (Tolkein excepted?) It starts to feel like homework that has no payoff; or indeed, if you had no sterling education and never really did any homework, it can lead to the thought that - maybe I should be reading the history of an actual empire? Like, uh, the ... Timurid or something?]
But I never read his column, and not because of the NYT paywall. Nor any of his colleagues, of course.
That just goes to show the power of the NYT to neuter, even someone who plays the game so well he surely requires little editing.
You should give them another chance. I usually enjoy his columns.
I read Douthat a couple years back giving credence to the "chronic Lyme" hoax, and thought, "he's found it, the one kind of kooky alternative medicine that will still work with the Times readership." Californians have woo-woo alt-medicine for eccentric weirdos with high openness, while New Englanders have alt-medicine tailored for neurotic hypochondriacs in their late 40s with a bunch of money to burn.
Can't say about others but I definitely don't think he's a hypochondriac. I imagine in an age of medical wonders (albeit ones that both enhance life and take away from it) it's just hard to live with the firm "no" to the question of whether we understand autoimmune illness at the present time.
As someone who agrees with virtually nothing Douthat writes (at least as far as his conclusions go) I still feel that he's by far the most interesting Op-Ed writer for the Times. I enjoy reading him immensely.
Anyone who has written for publication anyplace more august then the neighborhood newsletter likely has editor stories. In my experience, it is usually a problem of youth, young people wanting to do a good job, yes, but wanting to make a mark of some kind, without the benefits of age or experience--benefits, of course, that young people typically find hard to appreciate.
Krugman and Paul essentially walked off the job at the NYTimes. The crushed Democratic Party doubling down on identity politics by enforcing rigid gender/trans requirements for their leadership and establishing a Muslim caucus. Vance goes to Germany for his first big policy address to criticize Germans for keeping neo-Nazi parties out of government. The richest man in the world assumes management of the US government to methodically eliminate any trace of neutral expertise while gleefully signaling support of the alt-right.....
To paraphrase that ominous quote - "the lights are going out, all over the world."
No, JD Vance told them that draconian laws forbidding and/or punishing speech, in addition to being completely ineffective, are also deeply contrary to the values America wants to promote at home and abroad. And he's completely, 100%, correct.
The idea that allowing speech causes fascism is one of the many stupidities that have sunk the progressive brand. Perhaps it wouldn't kill progressives if they stopped mindlessly supporting literally everything their current Two Minutes Hate figure on the right opposes.
"The idea that allowing speech causes fascism is one of the many stupidities that have sunk the progressive brand."
Along with the none-too-subtle subtext that, needless to say, We The Enlightened Ones should be the ones who get to decide which speehc is permitted and what will get the speaker tossed in the stockade.
Of course, the editing defining the paper's agenda---on top of all this---is most interesting.
At some point in my IT career at a Fortune 10, I realized that the auditors were always going to find things, because it is their job to audit, and they aren't going to spend weeks looking at your solution only to say "all good." They have to justify their jobs. You learn to play that game, but the wasted time is frustrating. Sounds like editor and auditors would get along.
Weirdly, that sounds like something common in Soviet Russia. Just endlessly keep making up shit to justify your job.
This is true of SO many positions, I think. Attorneys? I've married into a family of attorneys. Nice people. Smart people. But no attorney is going to tell you that anything is 'fine.' They don't matter if they're not able to tell you that there is some concern you're not aware of, and they will charge you for it. It's not their fault (or the auditors). It's incentives. It's always incentives.
“They employ a lot of talented writers on the Opinion side and Brett Stephens…” Nobel Prize winner of 2025.