“Woke” is African American Vernacular English… like “jive”…”right on” … maybe you won’t “boogie” all night..like the “cool cats”…instead of acting like some “jive turkey” using “woke” as an insult to liberals… yuh dig?
Some journalists claiming NLRA protects them from company censorship.
I don't think I'm a stupid person. But I do not understand at all what your argument is concerning these NYT incidents. I don't understand who are the ones who are supposedly "woke" or who's allegedly "censoring" whom. I'm baffled.
Read the links I provided to Joe Kahn's memo and Eric Wemple's report on the "splintering of the newsroom" as well as Mirkinson's report on reporters siding with Kahn. Third paragraph of my 1:03 pm post.
I did read the links. That's precisely why I don't understand what you're talking about.
Some journalists claiming NLRA protects them from company censorship.
I don't think I'm a stupid person. But I do not understand at all what your argument is concerning these NYT incidents. I don't understand who are the ones who are supposedly "woke" or who's allegedly "censoring" whom. I'm baffled.
Read the links I provided to Joe Kahn's memo and Eric Wemple's report on the "splintering of the newsroom" as well as Mirkinson's report on reporters siding with Kahn. Third paragraph of my 1:03 pm post.
I did read the links. That's precisely why I don't understand what you're talking about.
The Eric Wemple piece explains what I'm talking about. The other two links provide additional details. I've annotated the Wemple piece with comments in [ BOLD AND CAPS ]:
The New York Times newsroom is splintering over a trans coverage debate
By Erik Wemple Media critic|February 24, 2023 at 6:45 a.m.
The New York Times is racked with internal dissent over internal dissent — a development stemming from multiple open letters sent last week to newspaper management taking issue with the paper’s recent coverage of transgender youth. The uproar reflects the pressures of managing coverage of a sensitive topic at a time when media criticism is flourishing everywhere.“As thinkers, we are disappointed to see the New York Times follow the lead of far-right hate groups in presenting gender diversity as a new controversy warranting new, punitive legislation,” reads one of those open letters, from multiple Times contributors and five employees. [<-- WOKE NYT CONTRIBUTORS AND EMPLOYEES ] The polemic slams the Times for spilling much ink on trans youth even though it has published “no rapt reporting on the thousands of parents who simply love and support their children, or on the hardworking professionals at the New York Times enduring a workplace made hostile by bias.” (GLAAD and other organizations wrote another letter expressing similar objections. [<-- NON-NYT WOKE ADVOCACY GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS CLAIMING NY TIMES COVERAGE OF TRANS ISSUES IS "BIASED AND IRRESPONSIBLE" AND INDIRECTLY CONTRIBUTES TO HIGH SUICIDE RATE OF LGBTQ YOUTH ]
In response, New York Times Executive Editor Joe Kahn and Opinions chief Kathleen Kingsbury defended the coverage and deplored staffers’ involvement in the protest: “We do not welcome, and will not tolerate, participation by Times journalists in protests organized by advocacy groups or attacks on colleagues on social media and other public forums,” their letter reads.[ <-- PUSHBACK BY TIMES MANAGEMENT ]
The NewsGuild of New York, which represents Times journalists, tells the Erik Wemple Blog that Times employees have been called into “investigatory meetings” related to their participation as signatories. An informed source says that disciplinary actions are underway.
The tough talk from management prompted a rebuke from Susan DeCarava, president of the NewsGuild, which is in the midst of contentious collective bargaining negotiations with the Times. The coherence of the don’t-attack-your-colleagues rule is questionable, noted DeCarava, since the paper in 2020 published a critique by op-ed columnist Bret Stephens of the Times’s own 1619 Project.
What’s more, the employees’ activity is protected by law, argued DeCarava: “As you know, employees have a right under federal law to engage in protected concerted activity to address workplace conditions. It is a violation of federal law for The New York Times to threaten, restrain or coerce employees from engaging in such activity. Employees are protected in collectively raising concerns that conditions of their employment constitute a hostile working environment. This was the concern explicitly raised in the letter at issue here.” [< -- CLAIM THAT SPEECH PROTESTING NEWSPAPER CONTENT IS PROTECTED BY NLRA BECAUSE NEWSPAPER CONTENT COMPRISES "WORKPLACE CONDITIONS" ]
Hold on a second: Was the union chief arguing that Times content itself — the gist of its stories; the reportorial choices in investigative pieces, for example — constituted “workplace conditions” that employees have a right to address? That was the takeaway of approximately 100 Times journalists who signed yet another letter — this one bashing DeCarava’s logic. “Factual, accurate journalism that is written, edited, and published in accordance with Times standards does not create a hostile workplace,” reads their letter. “Every day, partisan actors seek to influence, attack, or discredit our work. We accept that. But what we don’t accept is what the Guild appears to be endorsing: A workplace in which any opinion or disagreement about Times coverage can be recast as a matter of ‘workplace conditions.’”[ < PUSHBACK FROM NON-WOKE TIMES EMPLOYEES ]
Bill Baker, unit chair of the Times guild, said the employee letter attacking the guild was an interpretive “error” and that DeCarava’s message had “nothing to do with journalism and editorial content.” And Jenny Vrentas, a Times sports reporter, says she read the DeCarava letter “differently” than some of her colleagues had. In a guild town hall meeting on Tuesday, DeCarava defended her response to Times management, saying repeatedly that those who saw a threat to editorial independence had “misread” her words, according to several attendees. A guild spokesperson told the Erik Wemple Blog that DeCarava’s letter “made no assertion that editorial content was a workplace condition.”
Yet it’s hard to misread a comment from guild rep Claire Hirschberg, who recently told Times employees in the guild’s Slack channel: “I just want to be 100% clear as your guild rep that you are protected in participating in concerted collective activity and speaking out about your working conditions, including speaking out about things like NYT’s coverage of trans people. your union will protect and enforce your rights!” Asked whether that statement was a mistake or an expression of union policy, the guild spokesperson responded that it was “not a comment on editorial content or editorial policy.”
Close watchers of the Times might see some similarities between this high-profile controversy, with its internal dissension and guild involvement, and the June 2020 episode that preceded the dismissal of James Bennet as Times editorial page editor. Then, the Times erupted over an op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) on the appropriate response to violence amid the George Floyd protests. Many Times staffers tweeted that the piece put Black Times staffers in danger. According to then-Times media columnist Ben Smith, the guild later “advised staff members that that formulation was legally protected speech because it focused on workplace safety”; it also issued a blistering statement about the Cotton op-ed. Times leadership didn’t condemn the internal criticism, though early the next year it promulgated communications guidelines for employees on “how to talk to, ask questions of and respond to each other in ways that support a positive and productive work environment.”
Newsrooms can be tough workplaces to manage. There are more than 1,700 journalists at the Times, and they read and follow their colleagues’ work closely. Though a general prohibition on criticizing the work of colleagues is destined to fail, newspaper leaders are correct to respond firmly to an advocacy petition. Journalists, after all, are paid to cover such efforts, not join them.
Some journalists claiming NLRA protects them from company censorship.
I don't think I'm a stupid person. But I do not understand at all what your argument is concerning these NYT incidents. I don't understand who are the ones who are supposedly "woke" or who's allegedly "censoring" whom. I'm baffled.
Read the links I provided to Joe Kahn's memo and Eric Wemple's report on the "splintering of the newsroom" as well as Mirkinson's report on reporters siding with Kahn. Third paragraph of my 1:03 pm post.
I did read the links. That's precisely why I don't understand what you're talking about.
The Eric Wemple piece explains what I'm talking about. The other two links provide additional details. I've annotated the Wemple piece with comments in [ BOLD AND CAPS ]:
The New York Times newsroom is splintering over a trans coverage debate
By Erik Wemple Media critic|February 24, 2023 at 6:45 a.m.
The New York Times is racked with internal dissent over internal dissent — a development stemming from multiple open letters sent last week to newspaper management taking issue with the paper’s recent coverage of transgender youth. The uproar reflects the pressures of managing coverage of a sensitive topic at a time when media criticism is flourishing everywhere.“As thinkers, we are disappointed to see the New York Times follow the lead of far-right hate groups in presenting gender diversity as a new controversy warranting new, punitive legislation,” reads one of those open letters, from multiple Times contributors and five employees. [<-- WOKE NYT CONTRIBUTORS AND EMPLOYEES ] The polemic slams the Times for spilling much ink on trans youth even though it has published “no rapt reporting on the thousands of parents who simply love and support their children, or on the hardworking professionals at the New York Times enduring a workplace made hostile by bias.” (GLAAD and other organizations wrote another letter expressing similar objections. [<-- NON-NYT WOKE ADVOCACY GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS CLAIMING NY TIMES COVERAGE OF TRANS ISSUES IS "BIASED AND IRRESPONSIBLE" AND INDIRECTLY CONTRIBUTES TO HIGH SUICIDE RATE OF LGBTQ YOUTH ]
In response, New York Times Executive Editor Joe Kahn and Opinions chief Kathleen Kingsbury defended the coverage and deplored staffers’ involvement in the protest: “We do not welcome, and will not tolerate, participation by Times journalists in protests organized by advocacy groups or attacks on colleagues on social media and other public forums,” their letter reads.[ <-- PUSHBACK BY TIMES MANAGEMENT ]
The NewsGuild of New York, which represents Times journalists, tells the Erik Wemple Blog that Times employees have been called into “investigatory meetings” related to their participation as signatories. An informed source says that disciplinary actions are underway.
The tough talk from management prompted a rebuke from Susan DeCarava, president of the NewsGuild, which is in the midst of contentious collective bargaining negotiations with the Times. The coherence of the don’t-attack-your-colleagues rule is questionable, noted DeCarava, since the paper in 2020 published a critique by op-ed columnist Bret Stephens of the Times’s own 1619 Project.
What’s more, the employees’ activity is protected by law, argued DeCarava: “As you know, employees have a right under federal law to engage in protected concerted activity to address workplace conditions. It is a violation of federal law for The New York Times to threaten, restrain or coerce employees from engaging in such activity. Employees are protected in collectively raising concerns that conditions of their employment constitute a hostile working environment. This was the concern explicitly raised in the letter at issue here.” [< -- CLAIM THAT SPEECH PROTESTING NEWSPAPER CONTENT IS PROTECTED BY NLRA BECAUSE NEWSPAPER CONTENT COMPRISES "WORKPLACE CONDITIONS" ]
Hold on a second: Was the union chief arguing that Times content itself — the gist of its stories; the reportorial choices in investigative pieces, for example — constituted “workplace conditions” that employees have a right to address? That was the takeaway of approximately 100 Times journalists who signed yet another letter — this one bashing DeCarava’s logic. “Factual, accurate journalism that is written, edited, and published in accordance with Times standards does not create a hostile workplace,” reads their letter. “Every day, partisan actors seek to influence, attack, or discredit our work. We accept that. But what we don’t accept is what the Guild appears to be endorsing: A workplace in which any opinion or disagreement about Times coverage can be recast as a matter of ‘workplace conditions.’”[ < PUSHBACK FROM NON-WOKE TIMES EMPLOYEES ]
Bill Baker, unit chair of the Times guild, said the employee letter attacking the guild was an interpretive “error” and that DeCarava’s message had “nothing to do with journalism and editorial content.” And Jenny Vrentas, a Times sports reporter, says she read the DeCarava letter “differently” than some of her colleagues had. In a guild town hall meeting on Tuesday, DeCarava defended her response to Times management, saying repeatedly that those who saw a threat to editorial independence had “misread” her words, according to several attendees. A guild spokesperson told the Erik Wemple Blog that DeCarava’s letter “made no assertion that editorial content was a workplace condition.”
Yet it’s hard to misread a comment from guild rep Claire Hirschberg, who recently told Times employees in the guild’s Slack channel: “I just want to be 100% clear as your guild rep that you are protected in participating in concerted collective activity and speaking out about your working conditions, including speaking out about things like NYT’s coverage of trans people. your union will protect and enforce your rights!” Asked whether that statement was a mistake or an expression of union policy, the guild spokesperson responded that it was “not a comment on editorial content or editorial policy.”
Close watchers of the Times might see some similarities between this high-profile controversy, with its internal dissension and guild involvement, and the June 2020 episode that preceded the dismissal of James Bennet as Times editorial page editor. Then, the Times erupted over an op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) on the appropriate response to violence amid the George Floyd protests. Many Times staffers tweeted that the piece put Black Times staffers in danger. According to then-Times media columnist Ben Smith, the guild later “advised staff members that that formulation was legally protected speech because it focused on workplace safety”; it also issued a blistering statement about the Cotton op-ed. Times leadership didn’t condemn the internal criticism, though early the next year it promulgated communications guidelines for employees on “how to talk to, ask questions of and respond to each other in ways that support a positive and productive work environment.”
Newsrooms can be tough workplaces to manage. There are more than 1,700 journalists at the Times, and they read and follow their colleagues’ work closely. Though a general prohibition on criticizing the work of colleagues is destined to fail, newspaper leaders are correct to respond firmly to an advocacy petition. Journalists, after all, are paid to cover such efforts, not join them.
Click to Read More
The New York Times is racked with internal dissent over internal dissent — a development stemming from multiple open letters sent last week to newspaper management taking issue with the paper’s recent coverage of transgender youth. The uproar reflects the pressures of managing coverage of a sensitive topic at a time when media criticism is flourishing everywhere.“As thinkers, we are disappointed to see the New York Times follow the lead of far-right hate groups in presenting gender diversity as a new controversy warranting new, punitive legislation,” reads one of those open letters, from multiple Times contributors and five employees. [<-- WOKE NYT CONTRIBUTORS AND EMPLOYEES ] The polemic slams the Times for spilling much ink on trans youth even though it has published “no rapt reporting on the thousands of parents who simply love and support their children, or on the hardworking professionals at the New York Times enduring a workplace made hostile by bias.” (GLAAD and other organizations wrote another letter expressing similar objections. [<-- NON-NYT WOKE ADVOCACY GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS CLAIMING NY TIMES COVERAGE OF TRANS ISSUES IS "BIASED AND IRRESPONSIBLE" AND INDIRECTLY CONTRIBUTES TO HIGH SUICIDE RATE OF LGBTQ YOUTH ]
In response, New York Times Executive Editor Joe Kahn and Opinions chief Kathleen Kingsbury defended the coverage and deplored staffers’ involvement in the protest: “We do not welcome, and will not tolerate, participation by Times journalists in protests organized by advocacy groups or attacks on colleagues on social media and other public forums,” their letter reads.[ <-- PUSHBACK BY TIMES MANAGEMENT ]
The NewsGuild of New York, which represents Times journalists, tells the Erik Wemple Blog that Times employees have been called into “investigatory meetings” related to their participation as signatories. An informed source says that disciplinary actions are underway.
The tough talk from management prompted a rebuke from Susan DeCarava, president of the NewsGuild, which is in the midst of contentious collective bargaining negotiations with the Times. The coherence of the don’t-attack-your-colleagues rule is questionable, noted DeCarava, since the paper in 2020 published a critique by op-ed columnist Bret Stephens of the Times’s own 1619 Project.
What’s more, the employees’ activity is protected by law, argued DeCarava: “As you know, employees have a right under federal law to engage in protected concerted activity to address workplace conditions. It is a violation of federal law for The New York Times to threaten, restrain or coerce employees from engaging in such activity. Employees are protected in collectively raising concerns that conditions of their employment constitute a hostile working environment. This was the concern explicitly raised in the letter at issue here.” [< -- CLAIM THAT SPEECH PROTESTING NEWSPAPER CONTENT IS PROTECTED BY NLRA BECAUSE NEWSPAPER CONTENT COMPRISES "WORKPLACE CONDITIONS" ]
Hold on a second: Was the union chief arguing that Times content itself — the gist of its stories; the reportorial choices in investigative pieces, for example — constituted “workplace conditions” that employees have a right to address? That was the takeaway of approximately 100 Times journalists who signed yet another letter — this one bashing DeCarava’s logic. “Factual, accurate journalism that is written, edited, and published in accordance with Times standards does not create a hostile workplace,” reads their letter. “Every day, partisan actors seek to influence, attack, or discredit our work. We accept that. But what we don’t accept is what the Guild appears to be endorsing: A workplace in which any opinion or disagreement about Times coverage can be recast as a matter of ‘workplace conditions.’”[ < PUSHBACK FROM NON-WOKE TIMES EMPLOYEES ]
Bill Baker, unit chair of the Times guild, said the employee letter attacking the guild was an interpretive “error” and that DeCarava’s message had “nothing to do with journalism and editorial content.” And Jenny Vrentas, a Times sports reporter, says she read the DeCarava letter “differently” than some of her colleagues had. In a guild town hall meeting on Tuesday, DeCarava defended her response to Times management, saying repeatedly that those who saw a threat to editorial independence had “misread” her words, according to several attendees. A guild spokesperson told the Erik Wemple Blog that DeCarava’s letter “made no assertion that editorial content was a workplace condition.”
Yet it’s hard to misread a comment from guild rep Claire Hirschberg, who recently told Times employees in the guild’s Slack channel: “I just want to be 100% clear as your guild rep that you are protected in participating in concerted collective activity and speaking out about your working conditions, including speaking out about things like NYT’s coverage of trans people. your union will protect and enforce your rights!” Asked whether that statement was a mistake or an expression of union policy, the guild spokesperson responded that it was “not a comment on editorial content or editorial policy.”
Close watchers of the Times might see some similarities between this high-profile controversy, with its internal dissension and guild involvement, and the June 2020 episode that preceded the dismissal of James Bennet as Times editorial page editor. Then, the Times erupted over an op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) on the appropriate response to violence amid the George Floyd protests. Many Times staffers tweeted that the piece put Black Times staffers in danger. According to then-Times media columnist Ben Smith, the guild later “advised staff members that that formulation was legally protected speech because it focused on workplace safety”; it also issued a blistering statement about the Cotton op-ed. Times leadership didn’t condemn the internal criticism, though early the next year it promulgated communications guidelines for employees on “how to talk to, ask questions of and respond to each other in ways that support a positive and productive work environment.”
Newsrooms can be tough workplaces to manage. There are more than 1,700 journalists at the Times, and they read and follow their colleagues’ work closely. Though a general prohibition on criticizing the work of colleagues is destined to fail, newspaper leaders are correct to respond firmly to an advocacy petition. Journalists, after all, are paid to cover such efforts, not join them.
The Eric Wemple piece explains what I'm talking about. The other two links provide additional details. I've annotated the Wemple piece with comments in [ BOLD AND CAPS ]:
The New York Times newsroom is splintering over a trans coverage debate
By Erik Wemple Media critic|February 24, 2023 at 6:45 a.m.
It's a piece by a Washington Post columnist, viewing from the outside, commenting on internal debates at the NY Times.
The most important things to focus on would be the primary sources: (a) the reporting being discussed; (b) the criticisms in the "multiple open letters; and (c) the response from the NY Times. To the extent that the Wemple piece doesn't address that substance, it's best to look at the primary sources.
The last thing to pay attention to are the BOLD AND CAPS "annotations".
I don't understand who exactly are the "woke" in these examples, or who's being "censored" and more generally what in the wide world of sports the actual point is that you're trying to make. Do you have a beef with the NYT, the ADL, GLAAD, all of them, some of them?
As best I can determine, your use of "woke" seems to translate to "stuff I don't like." As for your definition of "censorship", who knows what you think it means.
For additional clarity about what Paul has been up to, I’ve been mentally replacing his references to “woke” with another word turned epithet, like “communist.”
I don't understand who exactly are the "woke" in these examples, or who's being "censored" and more generally what in the wide world of sports the actual point is that you're trying to make. Do you have a beef with the NYT, the ADL, GLAAD, all of them, some of them?
As best I can determine, your use of "woke" seems to translate to "stuff I don't like." As for your definition of "censorship", who knows what you think it means.
I don't understand who exactly are the "woke" in these examples, or who's being "censored" and more generally what in the wide world of sports the actual point is that you're trying to make. Do you have a beef with the NYT, the ADL, GLAAD, all of them, some of them?
As best I can determine, your use of "woke" seems to translate to "stuff I don't like." As for your definition of "censorship", who knows what you think it means.
I think it’s along the lines of this viewpoint.
the worst part of this whole Adams/Musk kerfuffle is that they are ignorant of what "it's okay to be white" actually signifies. I have to admit, I wasn't aware either, but instead of going off half cocked and being outraged, I looked it up. It turns out it's a phrase that has been posted in supposed liberal enclaves to troll people. So what the Rasmussen poll really reveals is that half of Black people are well aware that it's a catchphrase that's been taken up by white racists. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that Rasmussen would ask such a question, but by doing so, they're trolling all the non-racist people too.
Once again all Musk is doing is showing his ignorance, and self-owning. Adams OTOH showed himself to be not only ignorant, but stupid and unhinged.
So what the Rasmussen poll really reveals is that half of Black people are well aware that it's a catchphrase that's been taken up by white racists.
What is your basis for assuming half of Black people answered the question with an awareness it was a trolling catchphrase? You didn't know it was, and I didn't either. Seems to me it's more likely that most people answered the question at face value, rather than going off some obscure backstory / hidden meaning.
What is your basis for assuming half of Black people answered the question with an awareness it was a trolling catchphrase? You didn't know it was, and I didn't either. Seems to me it's more likely that most people answered the question at face value, rather than going off some obscure backstory / hidden meaning.
Seems to me that we have little to no information about this, but why should that stop a good argument, right?
So what the Rasmussen poll really reveals is that half of Black people are well aware that it's a catchphrase that's been taken up by white racists.
What is your basis for assuming half of Black people answered the question with an awareness it was a trolling catchphrase? You didn't know it was, and I didn't either. Seems to me it's more likely that most people answered the question at face value, rather than going off some obscure backstory / hidden meaning.
fair enough. But Adams also doesn't know that it means they're anti-white either.
It's a bad survey question. The result could also mean "if I'm Black, how do I know if it's okay to be white?" Survey questions should yield clear answers as to what the respondents meant. This one doesn't.
What is your basis for assuming half of Black people answered the question with an awareness it was a trolling catchphrase? You didn't know it was, and I didn't either. Seems to me it's more likely that most people answered the question at face value, rather than going off some obscure backstory / hidden meaning.
Seems to me that we have little to no information about this, but why should that stop a good argument, right?
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. I know how argument-averse you are.
What is your basis for assuming half of Black people answered the question with an awareness it was a trolling catchphrase? You didn't know it was, and I didn't either. Seems to me it's more likely that most people answered the question at face value, rather than going off some obscure backstory / hidden meaning.
Seems to me that we have little to no information about this, but why should that stop a good argument, right?
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to offend you. I know how argument-averse you are.
I'm not "argument averse". I'm not a big fan of just making things up and then saying, "Proved it!"
I'm not "argument averse". I'm not a big fan of just making things up and then saying, "Proved it!"
I'm willing to concede that I overstated my point. But I still think it's more likely that half of Black people either knew the trolling history of the phrase, or thought it was a stupid question, than really and truly think it isn't okay to be white.
I think I actually understated my criticism of the question myself. A former colleague who is Black was very critical of Rasmussen asking the question at all, given the origin of the phrase. Can't say I disagree with him. Beyond it being a dumb question, it's also provoking, and gives an opening for racist reactions (Like Scott Adams, of course).
I'm willing to concede that I overstated my point. But I still think it's more likely that half of Black people either knew the trolling history of the phrase, or thought it was a stupid question, than really and truly think it isn't okay to be white.
Or interpreted the question in any number of cogent ways that would be apparent if only astonished or outraged white people asked them to elaborate, rather than make assumptions and prove them right.
I'm willing to concede that I overstated my point. But I still think it's more likely that half of Black people either knew the trolling history of the phrase, or thought it was a stupid question, than really and truly think it isn't okay to be white.
Or interpreted the question in any number of cogent ways that would be apparent if only astonished or outraged white people asked them to elaborate, rather than make assumptions and prove them right.
yes.
It's also logical for a Black person to think it's a lot better than just "okay" to be white. Or a lot of other stuff that isn't anti-white.
Good to have a fighter against climate change on top.
why? Couldn't he "fight" climate change the same if he was the 20th richest person? Or the 100th? Or even thr 1,000th? Your response is something of a non sequitur.
.