New York Times Readers Are Canceling Subscriptions Over Climate-Denying Writer

[TomCADem]

Source: Huffington Post

The New York Times just hired Bret Stephens, a conservative writer who identifies as a “climate agnostic” ― infuriating many readers who say the paper is going against its mission to cover climate change.

Now, scientists are rallying people against the Times and its new hire.

Climate scientist Michael E. Mann launched the hashtag #ShowYourCancellation this week after the paper’s public editor defended the decision to hire the former Wall Street Journal columnist, dismissing its so-called “left-leaning critics” who they claimed were leading a “fiery revolt.”

Mann called for people to prove to the Times that they were actually ending their subscriptions to the paper over Stephens, who published his first column on being skeptical about the effects of climate change on Friday.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/new-york-times-bret-stephens-subscriptions_us_5904171ce4b02655f83db230?2wb&ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009&ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

---

The NY Times is once again pushing false equivalency as journalism. Perhaps Orly Taitz will be added as a contributor to offer balance on the issue of where Obama was born.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/22/public-editor/seeking-more-voices-even-if-some-dont-want-to-hear-them.html?_r=2&utm_source=huffingtonpost.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pubexchange_article

At this particular moment in history, that doesn’t always go down easy. A day of reckoning along that path came earlier this month, when editorial page editor James Bennet did his part to broaden reader horizons by naming conservative Bret Stephens to the prestigious — and mostly liberal — roster of Times columnists.

Stephens’s coronation produced a fiery revolt among readers and left-leaning critics. They rummaged through his columns for proof that he is a climate change denier, a bigot or maybe a misogynist. More complaints came into the public editor’s office than at any time since the election, with many readers threatening to cancel their subscriptions. (I’m told relatively few actually have.) Inside the building, some of Stephens’s future colleagues posted his “greatest hits” on a bulletin board. And a handful of newsroom staffers, most notably columnist Max Fisher and Cairo bureau chief Declan Walsh, have challenged Stephens on Twitter.

[n2doc]

1. I know several scientists who have cancelled their subscriptions over this

It really is a fuck you to the science community, which has traditionally held up the NYT as an exemplar of popular science reporting.

[certainot]

16. scientists all over the country, like michael mann, work at unis that help deny GW

giving an even bigger fuck you to the science community are the 88 universities that broadcast sports on 257 limbaugh stations - they've been denying global warming for 30 years.

that includes penn state where mann works, which allows 11 limbaugh stations to use it to attract advertisers to pay for all that denial

[Amaryllis]

19. More on same topic from the Guardian: NYT hired hippie puncher to give climate

obstructionist cover:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2017/apr/29/ny-times-hired-a-hippe-puncher-to-give-climate-obstructionists-cover

[DonCoquixote]

2. what does it say

when the New York Times was getting record subscriptions by being liberal but now is losing them by being conservative? It says reality still has a liberal bias.

[Skittles]

10. denying climate science is not conservative, it's just plain insane

it has NO PLACE in responsible journalism

[theaocp]

15. Frame the debate better

It's not "responsible" to do this. It is just not JOURNALISM. There is no caveat here.

[dalton99a]

3. Truly dumb move

[Sculpin Beauregard]

4. Giving idiots a platform is not balanced journalism.

[tenorly]

9. The same applies to their Latin America coverage.

Just dominated by right-wing exiles, as well as brats from landed elites sent off to study at Columbia by their parents.

The Wall Street Journal, though, is even worse. This is particularly so of Anastasia O'Grady - a real cheerleader of the dirty wars in the region, past and present, and frankly an outright fascist.

[BumRushDaShow]

5. The NYT did similar in 2007 bringing Bill Kristol on as a columnist

He lasted 2 years and that was that.

[deurbano]

6. Can't expect much from a "news" outlet that would promote "Clinton Cash"...

https://thinkprogress.org/steve-bannon-new-york-times-washington-post-clinton-cash-d59d6492546

Before denouncing Bannon, the New York Times and Washington Post partnered with him
Both papers struck deals to amplify Bannon’s flawed anti-Clinton research.

[Warpy]

7. I prefer the WaPo, which wears its editorial bias on its sleeve and doesn't go for false equivalency

after years of muddling around in the swamp along with the NYT. While Bezos is a bastard to pickers in his warehouses, he's been great for the WaPo.

[Achilleaze]

8. We don't need no stinkin fake republican "news"

give us a frikken break

[MountainFool]

11. cancel'd my subscription

Gave me no pleasure to do it ... I've been trying to support real News organizations and had just resubscribed after a long break after canceling for how they had treated Bernie. Sigh.

[athena]

12. I am no longer a subscriber, but for a different reason.

If you ever post on their comments pages, you will see that misogynistic or homophobic comments -- i.e., comments attacking or offensive to women, feminists, or LGBTQ people -- are allowed, but comments objecting to such comments are not allowed.

You can see their bias here:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/09/20/insider/approve-or-reject-moderation-quiz.html

A post calling Republicans "Repugnicans" is rejected because "Repugnicans" is considered "name-calling". But a post calling homosexuality "sodomy" and a sin is considered just fine. A post calling women who don't want their husbands to have extramarital affairs insecure is considered also OK. The NYT goes too far to appease right-wingers.

[TeamPooka]

13. so they really are the "failing NY Times?" oh brother.

[wolfie001]

14. I would have dropped them.....

....over their disingenuous coverage of the Clintons for the past, oh let's says twenty fuckin' years.

[Chevy]

29. Message deleted by DU the Administrators

[wolfie001]

30. So right!!! nt

[Hortensis]

40. Poison-Pen Dowd? For sure.

Even without their astonishing and history-making trashing of Hillary Clinton (it will go down in the history books). I'd like to cancel my on-line subscription, but so many google hits lead back to the NY Times' frequently very important investigative journalism.

[BadgerMom]

17. I cancelled today

I had been uncertainnuntil I read the public editor's piece. I responded to a commenter who asked where all of us would get our news if we cancelled. I listed all of my subscriptions: The Washington Post, The Guardian, The Los Angeles Times, and The New Yorker. The Economist is pricey, but that's likely my replacement for The Times.

[TomCADem]

35. Slate - Bret Stephens First Column for the New York Times Is Classic Climate Change Denialism

Bret Stepehens' premise is that because pollsters were wrong in predicting the 2016 election, all science is suspect. Shoot, can we even take the earth not being flat to the bank?

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2017/04/bret_stephens_first_new_york_times_column_is_classic_climate_change_denialism.html

he weekend after the New York Times announced it was hiring Bret Stephens—a conservative formerly of the Wall Street Journal whom some consider a climate change denier—to be its new columnist, I got into a fight with my mother. She was defending his hiring, arguing that he held views that many people hold, and that perhaps allowing him to put them on the pages of the New York Times would allow the paper to regain its position as a news source that can be trusted by people on both sides of the political spectrum. She was right that the public no longer seems to agree on what truth is, but she was wrong that bringing Stephens on would help us resolve this.

His debut column, “Climate of Complete Certainty,” published on Friday, supports my theory. The thesis of the column is that we would do well to remember that there are fair reasons why people might be skeptical of climate change, and that claiming certainty on the matter will only backfire. He casts himself as a translator between the skeptics and the believers, offering a lesson “for anyone who wants to advance the cause of good climate policy.” Technically, he doesn’t get any facts wrong. Painting himself as a moderate, he says it is “indisputable” that warming is happening and is caused by humans. From one angle, his point is quite familiar—it’s actually one that has been made somewhat frequently lately, and by liberal-leaning outlets, too: Shoving the certainty of fact down people’s throats is not the way to get them to change their minds, and it’s high time we try something else.

* * *
But in reality, the goal of this column is not to help readers learn how to reason with people who are skeptical about climate change. Instead, the column reinforces the idea that those people might have a point. The New York Times push notification that went out Friday afternoon about the column said as much—“reasonable people can be skeptical about the dangers of climate change,” it read. That is not actually true, and nothing that Stephens writes makes a case for why it might be true. This column is not a lesson for people who want to advance good climate policy. Instead, it is a dog whistle to people who feel confused about climate change. It’s nothing more than textbook denialism.

Stephens starts with the unprecedented and embarrassing loss of Hillary Clinton. The Clinton team, he says, “thought they were, if not 100 percent right, then very close.” Stephens is apparently dredging up this point to remind us all to be humble—we have a tendency to be overconfident in our data, he reminds us, we got this one wrong, and we are damned if we forget it. (I would assert that we certainly have not forgotten it, since it’s the entire reason why Stephens now has his job, but no matter.)

[Mountain Mule]

18. So is the Times going to hire a member of the Inquisition?

That way they can present their readers with a balanced view as to whether Galileo should be burned at the stake for daring to suggest that the sun did not revolve around the earth?

The Times should hire a columnist from the Flat Earth Society, as well.

Oh, and let's not forget evilution. Who's their creationist columnist these days?

Lord help us all.

[BarbD]

31. Where is truth?

Couldn't agree more about all media thinking balance means giving space and time to ridiculous ideas such as the Flat Earth Society. Advertisers want vanilla, everybody getting along and no one rocking the boat.

[NoMoreRepugs]

20. Switching coasts and going to replace w

Los Angeles Times..... NYT brass aren't reading the current tea leaves too well IMO

[bluescribbler]

21. I can't cancel.

I never subscribed, nor did I ever buy a copy at the newsstand.

[Boomer]

22. Canceled my sub

I subscribed last year in a deliberate effort to support journalism. The NYTimes just failed my standards for what constitutes a legitimate news source.

[mountain grammy]

23. This is exactly why I've never subscribed to the Times

although I used to buy the Sunday edition regularly, but stopped a while ago.

It's a great newspaper, but then, there's shit like this. They should know better.

[still_one]

24. I haven't decided what I am going to do yet. CNN, fox, MSNBC, and CNBC no longer come into my house

[whistler162]

25. Looks like Trump was right!

[Chevy]

26. Waiting for them to hire an flat earth columnist

in order to communicate with the heartland better as well.......

[orleans]

28. +1 n/t

[nocalflea]

27. M.Haberman & G.Thrush are still in denial about how the Times covered the election, so I'm not surprised about this.

The Times has lost it's way . I abhor censorship , but the "paper of record" has a duty to the public .The propagtion of climate change denial is not in the public's best interest . Their coverage of the election was piss-pour.Wobbly , wobbly ,wobbly .

[nada]

32. It has become a tough marketplace for the NY Times

It is difficult and takes guts to stick to principles when being attacked by social media where the arguments become black and white. The reality is they are a business, and sometimes it is best to just buckle.

[TomCADem]

34. To cancel your NY Times subscription...

...you have to call. They won't let you do so online.

If you are in the United States, you can call 800-NYTIMES (800-698-4637). Our hours are 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. E.T. Monday - Friday, and 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. E.T. Saturday - Sunday. If you are outside of the United States, please see our international contact information.

[GP6971]

36. I've subscribed to the Times

starting with hard copy in the 60s through the late 80s And then online since the late 90s. I've been through their ups and downs and will continue to do so.

I always take their editorials with a many grains of salt.

Hard to give up your first "international Paper". I preferred the NY York Herald Tribune , but they went out of business in the 60s.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

38. Welcome. Yes. Binary thinking has increased in the digital age and remains just as much a fallacy.

Welcome to DU.

[steve2470]

39. principles denial of climate change realities ? no thanks nt

[irisblue]

33. Fact Checker for the NYT, the paper of record would seem to be an honorable job.

Not especially busy on the climate change deniers though. WTH is wrong with the Editor not using the staff?

[TexasBushwhacker]

37. It makes no more sense to have a climate change denier on staff

than it does to have someone who believes in fairies on staff, to cover the fairy beat.