I'm not blaming non-journalists for not knowing what's in the report. I am saying that many (not all!) journalists and media organizations whiffed on reporting this in the moment, and that it's irresponsible to write about this news now as if we haven't known it for two years.
The explicit comparison of the 1/6 commission to the 9/11 commission here just seems ... wild. The 9/11 commission would not have worked if half the members had belonged to a political party whose supporters included a lot of people in favor of 9/11 homeland.house.gov/news/press-rel…
I would be interested to know to what extent those two cross-cutting attitudes map onto one another. Anecdotally it seems to me that there's some pretty significant correlation
Sometimes this can have paradoxically good effects, like getting Never Trump conservatives to start taking voting rights seriously!
if it's just "people you are interested in writing things," then substack is a reasonable replacement. if there's some kind of signaling function of running something in The New York Times, then this is a different question.
but that would be easier to address if NYT (or any other paper) knew what exactly it was trying to signal. and that's before we get to editorial boards which are a whole other kettle of fish
it is genuinely fascinating how quickly this view has become accepted wisdom. in 2016 it was incredibly rare to see someone making this argument. post-2020 I see it all the time
Most of all what I feel right now is just a sense of ... loss
For the 400,000 dead, but also for everyone who hasn't been able to see their family or was hurt or sick or couldn't get help, and for the four years that could have been spent working toward something more worthwhile. The worst of it may be over, but that time is not coming back
None of this had to happen. There was no point to any of it.