Jeff Jarvis Profile picture
Mar 18 16 tweets 5 min read
This is appalling. The both-sidesism of The New York Times comes out in full force from its editorial board as it equates the left criticizing hate and the right burning books. Pure moral panic. A 🧵. 1/…
The editorial's lede is the worst of it. No, we have not lost our right to speak. We are exercising our right to speak around the gatekeepers that included old, white, male, privileged, powerful, closed newspapers and editorial boards and they resent it. 2/
I hate polls as much as I hate from-on-high newspaper editorials for how they both preempt the public conversation, and this one brings me both. How did they expect people to answer this leading question? 3/
Note, too, how The Times tsk-tsks liberals for "shutting down"--loaded choice of verbs there--bigoted, anti-democratic, and untrue (read: Republican) speech. 4/
If you doubt for a moment The Times' turn to sympathy with the white-right, let this end those doubts: a yes-but attack on the left for making white people uncomfortable. Here is white victimhood, naked to behold. 5/
If one doubts this is about race, The Times own poll shows it is. Black people feel freer to discuss various topics and that is what bothers The Times but they are blind to it. 6/
I'm reminded of this brilliant thread from Canadian academic @rinireg, about the Movement for Marginal Protections, which "wants to make it socially costly to debate the rights of marginalized people," against the Status Quo Warriors. The Times is SQW. 7/
What The Times and Status Quo Warriors are objecting to is a process of norm-negotiation. The Times wants to be in a position to impose norms but can no longer. It resents the loss of power. 8/
The Times editorial board has been storing this anger up since losing its editor & columnists to criticism for bad decisions. The Times is blaming everyone but itself. That's the position of power The Times has long held. It can't adjust to being part of a larger conversation. 9/
What the internet has done is more voices too long not heard through the gatekeeping of white, male, mass media to have their say and the gatekeepers resent it. Just like the Trumpists, they do not want to share the institutions of power. 10/
So The Times gives us moral panic, blaming unseen forces that even The Times in this editorial refused to define: "However you define cancel culture, Americans know it exists, and feel its burden." Don't bother defining it. Calling it a foreboding force to fear is sufficient. 11/
It sounds like an old coot telling the newcomers to get off the lawn. "But the old lesson of 'think before you speak' has given way to the new lesson of 'speak at your peril.'" 12/
And get this: In issuing the necessary caveat that the First Amendment restricts only government, The Times draws an equivalency between Putin's censorship and that which The Times claims it feels here. Just offensive. 13/
Of course, the grand paradox of this editorial is that The Times is complaining of being silenced in the greatest platform for speech ever yet created, the editorial page of The New York Times. 14/
From its bunker, The Times Editorial Board issues this threat: "This editorial board plans to identify a wide range of threats to freedom of speech in the coming months, and to offer possible solutions." Can't wait. 15/
The Times Editorial Board is trying to convince us that it is canceled. There is no such things as cancel culture. The Times is not canceled. It is merely complaining about having to share its stage. 16/

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Jeff Jarvis

Jeff Jarvis Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @jeffjarvis

Mar 18
Yes. And "quality speech" does not come from stopping certain speech. It will come from finding, recommending, amplifying certain speech: that which is informed, relevant, wise: you pick the criteria! 1/
The problem with the internet-is-bad game of whack-a-mole is that platforms are judged by what they don't kill ("something must be done"). It sets the terms of the discussion about discussion around what is bad & killed to cleanse the public sphere. That is futile & dangerous. 2/
See the first page of Harper's first issue in 1850. Its mission was to help folks find the good stuff. Our institutions that did that in the age of print are inadequate in a time of abundant speech. It's not the speech that's bad. Our institutions-NYT-aren't up to the task. 3/ Image
Read 5 tweets
Mar 3
I am bereft, but I knew this day would come. I spent more than two years trying to get @Zielina to come to @newmarkjschool because I knew she was the ONLY, the PERFECT person to start the executive program I'd dreamed of. Finally, I succeeded. So did she. 1/
.@Zielina did a brilliant job starting our News Innovation and Leadership management program, recruiting the best faculty and brilliant students who will take over and save journalism. Yes, that's their homework. I had the privilege of teaching alongside her and learned much. 2/
Not only that, but @Zielina gave my boss and dean, @sarah__bartlett--and many more of our colleagues--brilliant strategic advice for our school. She has been an invaluable force among us. I am grateful she took time from her meteoric media career to do this. 3/
Read 5 tweets
Mar 1
Copyright board refuses protection to AI-made art. 'Copyright law only protects “the fruits of intellectual labor” that “are founded in the creative powers of the [human] mind.”'
'Human' in brackets. We are now a parenthetical presumption.…
h/t @PuckNews
In 1884, Lithographic v Sarony defendant contended a photograph (this one) was not a human creation. Court disagreed, extending the definition of "author." Now the board does not. AI marks a separation from humanity, apparently. It is its own beast.… Image
I predict this will not stand. Cuz capitalism. Keep in mind: copyright was not created to protect authors. No, it was instituted to create a tradable asset seen as intellectual *property* with a deed like a building. Those investing in creative AI will want to trade its products.
Read 5 tweets
Mar 1
Translator for @ZelenskyyUa's speech to the European Parliament right now starts with the anodyne voice of the translator, then chokes up, then echoes the strength of Zelensky's voice and mission, inspired.
"Do prove that you are with us. Do prove that you are Europeans." @ZelenskyyUa to the European Parliament.
Zelensky was followed by a Ukrainian legislator speaking before a screen filled with images of Russia's destruction in the nation.
Read 5 tweets
Feb 24
Imagine this: Helsinki Sanomat goes to historians for their perspective and context on the Russian attack. (Again, g'bless Google Translate.)…
Says one (via Google Translate): “Europe is a continent with a strong memory. Many of us remember quite concretely the feelings of horror created by World War II. The way history has now been exploited is truly exceptional, visible and quite cruel."
Once again, at moments such as this, I so with American news organizations would call upon historians and other academics for their perspective, context, and research, as Sanomat does here. That journalists write "the first draft of history" is hubristic bullshit.
Read 4 tweets
Feb 20
A powerful speech:
"We will defend our land with or without the support of partners. Whether they give us hundreds of modern weapons or five thousand helmets."…
Zelensky: "I just want to make sure you and I read the same books. Hence, we have the same understanding of the answer to the main question: how did it happen that in the XXI century, Europe is at war again and people are dying? Why does it last longer than World War II?"
Zelensky: 'Three years ago, it was here that Angela Merkel said: “Who will pick up the wreckage of the world order? Only all of us, together.” The audience gave a standing ovation. But, unfortunately, the collective applause did not grow into collective action.'
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!


0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy


3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!