It would be useful to abstract the Woody Allen thing a bit and instead discuss whether the fact that staffers at a publishing house are upset about a book's publication is sufficient reason for it to not be published.
2/ At many journalism outlets, younger staffers have huge sway in dictating coverage of issues they have the most passionate views about. Even staffers who are, on paper, quite senior to them understand that they will cause themselves a lot of trouble if they cross them. People
3/ often scoff at this and fail to understand two things can be true at once:
-In an absolute sense, a 25 yo associate editor has little power and is professionally precarious
-They still can, and do, exercise power within their organization
-In an absolute sense, a 25 yo associate editor has little power and is professionally precarious
-They still can, and do, exercise power within their organization
4/ If you write on certain issues, you may find yourself publishing stuff that
-the vast majority of Americans find inoffensive
-is *completely unacceptable* to even consider in journalism/publishing circles
How outlets/publishers handle this is crucial, and I'm pessimistic
-the vast majority of Americans find inoffensive
-is *completely unacceptable* to even consider in journalism/publishing circles
How outlets/publishers handle this is crucial, and I'm pessimistic
5/ The example I am most familiar with is youth GD, where even the opinion that some 13 yos should go on hormones but that assessment is crucial is considered too conservative for most mainstream outlets these days, in part because it would launch a staff revolt. So you have
6/ a situation in which a view 90% of the country would find either commonsense or too *liberal* is seen as verboten among a broad swath of mainstream journalism. It's an utterly broken state for media to be in if it's gonna say anything of interest to anyone outside Park Slope.
7/ This is the issue I'm most familiar with, but increasingly, it is the case with all sorts of hot-button issues. In the real world, the debate over Liz Warren's campaign's failure is complicated and there's a great deal of debate and uncertainty. How much of this debate will be
8/ reflected in mainstream outlets? Or will they all just run different versions of the sexism-as-primary-cause theory, which is a perfectly fine theory to posit but still *just a theory* that plenty of people disagree with?
9/The very last thing I'll say is it pisses me off how when these debates erupt online it's always a Manichean ARE YOU FOR OR AGAINST THIS PRECISE THING ITSELF when the only adult way to debate this stuff intelligibly is to have an open conversation about principles, values, etc.
10/ Wait I lied ACTUAL final point: If I'm correct and mainstream outlets are increasingly ignoring something like 80% of mainstream American opinion on certain hot issues, treating them as undebatable, then do NOT whine when people seek out other, less 'respectable' outlets.
