,
4 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
1. Is the New York Times an often irritating newspaper, one that is often not up to the task of covering Trump era? Sure. Is it worth cancelling your subscription? No, the act of cancelling is based on misunderstanding what the paper is all about.
2. The Times isn't, despite its own marketing, a "resistance" newspaper. It's a resolutely establishment newspaper with a tropism towards both-sides centrism. It's also a good newspaper that publish a lot of good journalism amid the usual assortment of access driven fluff.
3. Someone (Dwight Macdonald? Irving Howe?) said in the 1930s Marxists would read the Times the way medieval Christians read Aristotle, as an important authority even if a pagan one. That's a good way to read the paper: a source of information from a point-of-view not our own.
4. Ultimately the kerfuffle about the Times is about misunderstanding the paper & the sources of resistance. The paper is just a paper. Resistance can use stuff in the paper but the sources of resistance are elsewhere. I explain more here: thenation.com/article/new-yo…
