You have not made the case that Weiss is in error and woke populism is not the greater threat than Trump and MAGA populism, at least to Jews. Quoting from online pundits who agree with you that right populism is the greater threat is not proof, or is insufficient to prove your argument.
Some facts you are aware but have left out.
Andrew Sullivan linked to a NY Magazine Intelligencer column the week he and Times OpEd editor, James Bennet were fired.
Weiss called this a war between woke antisemites and older “institutionalists” at the Times. The Intelligencer made it clear that those the column labeled ” insurrectionists” want to ban speech it disliked and construct news the Times printed to comport with false narratives this tribe asserted were righteous. This distorted, ideological news coverage was confirmed in a Bar Ilan study ( I believe you covered )and can be seen in the Times decisions to print Anti-Jewish op-eds but also in its biased coverage of the Amsterdam pogrom, where it blamed the victims but never once mentioned that the perpetrators were Arabic speaking, ( almost certainly ) Moroccan Muslims.
Is it only the right banning ideas? The documentary October 8 could not find representation. Studios would not support it. The Academy’s documentary division refused to send it to its members. Would you define this as banning ideas? I would.
In book publishing, in main stream magazines and intellectual, non-academic outlets like the NYROB, will not publish essays that are pro-Jewish. No academic journal will print pro-Jewish articles. No citations, no published articles? There goes your academic career before it’s begun. Even established writers will shy away from the Frey for fear of cancelation. The number of congressional staffers, PR associates, foreign relations interns all have heavy anti-Jewish biases. The DSA litmus test on Jews may be closer than you care to admit. The post- modernist, social justice hordes have not yet taken over the Democratic Party but the rise of a Corbyn is not hard to imagine or far away. Fear is so great that self-censorship is a significant issue.
All over social media and in elite academic institutions religious dogma is indoctrinated into students too distracted to read. Not even Adoral can overcome this disinclination. Haidt called this group hyper-tribal and postulated they were desperate to belong to the group while fearful of any idea or fact that called into question their well meaning assumptions about power, race or social justice. Post-colonialism rules and the asserted facts that Jews are imperialist invaders, settler-colonialists, white passing, wealthy, privileged elites with hidden power who should not have the right to speech, assembly or petition their government could cone out or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Indeed, this Czarist work of fiction was dominant in post’67 Soviet anti-Jewish propaganda that gives us these dogmatic perception that Jews are evil.
Jews have the right to die but not to resist that existential determination that they should at the very least have no agency but best if Jews passively accept their fate since they stand in the way of the new Millennium.
Trump is a dangerous actor on whom to place your trust. But might Trump be less dangerous than these post-modern insurrectionists for Jews? Is Weiss exercising editorial judgement as an editor, as a journalist who has observed how irrational and powerful these woke, insurrectionists have become? Is she viewing this as an old fashioned, lesbian liberal who sees this anti-Judaism as the greater threat than, perhaps, you do? Or is she viewing this reality from the lens of a Jew in a post-Holocaust world with Jews denied access to professions, public spaces or news that escapes tribal distortion shaping it into a false, anti-Jewish narrative.
I am certainly sympathetic to Weiss’ view. More importantly, you have not debunked that view and shown her judgement is erroneous. You have asserted it is wrong. You have asserted Trump is the greater threat. You may be right. But for Jews the calculus may be different. For Weiss who watched these “insurrectionists” bully their editors into shaping the Times coverage of Jews that fit an ancient anti-Jewish narrative might be forgive if she thinks these barbarians need to be confronted. It is a return to the 1920s where both political parties are anti-Jewish and antisemetic. What is your political strategy as a Jew when both major parties in a two party system are disinterested in and antithetical to your self-interest and self-preservation? You seek out the lesser of the two evils and you may be very wrong in that tactical judgement. As the old Democratic warriors fade the tactics of slowly devouring institutions gives me pause if the Democratic Party is salvageable home for Jews. Risking that Trump is less bad than these “insurrectionists” may be a rational decision given the open, normalized anti-Jewish hostility from these spoiled, affluent elites growing both in strength and institutional power.
I agree with much of this. In addition, the amount of anti-Trump arguments is so ubiquitous that it would seem superfluous for TFP to cover it as extensively. Yes, there are pro-Trump people working there (and yes, some of them have some pretty shitty arguments, right Batya?). But many working there are very much anti-Trump. But to keep blowing that horn? Seems pointless in this media environment.
Further, listening to the conversations int he Free Press world, it is clear that few people there are anything except critical of what Trump is doing.
No, October 8 is in theatrical release. No agents would represent it, no studio would back its distribution, the academy’s documentary section would not distribute it to Academy members. No streaming channel would It was effectively banned until one of the theater chains dared to challenge the new, woke anti-Jewish consensus.
On the contrary, I love them. For example, is the Oct. 8 doc you're referring to that is supposedly being banned the same one that is currently streaming on Hulu? When you take a valid point into the territory of exaggeration and toward the border with lies, you're not doing your cause any favors. As for my claims that the FP is propaganda, I stand by it. Weiss's interviews are so friendly they would make the most optimistic PR rep blush. That's not to say there isn't some worthy work there, just that propaganda can function by sins of omission as well as commission.
Any interview with a politician will get the same canned answers & talking points regardless of the network or interviewer. Being confrontational & hostile will still get the same answers, except now you’ve lost access to that politician and all of their peers. Only remaining options will be the opposition. Bari has chosen the former and allows her staff to criticize the content in their articles. Hardly propaganda.
Strange that you feel compelled to defend access journalism being practiced by the person and platform that ostensibly exist solely to offer an alternative to that age-old tool of mainstream media. So I ask, what makes them any different? Next we’ll have Bari asking Trump how his golf game went.
FYI - the documentary film Oct 8th on view at the following services - Amazon. Google, AppleTV, Fandango , YouTube - I wouldn’t call this censorship because in today’s media market - the old players don’t really control the game anymore do they ?
Of course, you wouldn’t because you believe in cancelation of voices that oppose your tribal truth.
Had there not been a theatrical release but a brave theater chain owner the outcome you base your frail thesis would be untrue. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
No agency would represent the film. No studio would distribute it. The Academy refused to distribute it to its membership. The cancelation failed, but the effort to cancel it was strong and persistent.
The problem with antisemites is they are ignorant bigots who assert untruth as fact and otherwise pay no mind to facts. To win your argument that what streaming services initially refused to license the film and their inability to continue that boycott because of the campaign by its producer to counter the narrative that people like your scram to drown out truth.
You know what’s actually a grift? Trying to reap engagement and clout by attacking successful publications with spurious accusations full of hyperbolic and inflammatory language.
Kinda sounds right to me Benjy...I'm trying to understand what Sullivan's beef is about...really. Is it about the name: The Free Press. Seems to be a part of it. If people misunderstand the name then bad on them. Is he (Sullivan) claiming the name and the content are misleading? I'm gonna go back a reread what he said. Perhaps he has some legit gripes. Of course she has a point of view and if you know anything at all about he kerfuffle with The NY Times, you'll get it. At any rate, since I started reading The FP, as someone who came of age in the 60s, it reminded me of the anti-establishment pub we read to get the real 411.
You cherry pick and then paint the entire publication with a very broad brush. What you say is not true so good luck with your following while tFp is over a million now and far more balanced than what i just read from you. Hmm.
This sounds more and more like an argument that goes like this: "You can't trust these other people but you can trust me. They are one sided but I am not." But are they? Are you?
One reliable feature of the modern "post news" world of commentary is the degree to which the self-appointed pundits embody the behaviors that they professed to deplore.
In many ways, however, the media market has become terrificly energized. It's chaotic and there are zero reliable centers. It now looks like an impressive scatter diagram.
I’m not so sure you’re characterizing her backers accurately, but this has nothing to do with my comment in any event. And there’s no such thing as a “full journalist.” The bottom line is people who like to trash the FP always cherry-pick a couple articles, usually mischaracterize them, and ignore other articles that prove their narrative wrong.
The Free Press is a great outlet. But they’re small, not a 500 person newsroom. They’re not deranged like the NYT and CNN and others and clearly that triggers many on the left. And they’re not rabidly anti Israel, which triggers the far left and the far right.
What news source would you recommend NPR? PBS? NYT? Washington Post? Fox News? National Review? They all have their bias. And so do you. I happen to find The Free Press a good alternative.
Sadly, European University campuses HAVE become a hot-bed of speech policing and cancel culture related to gender ideology, and there are hundreds of cases of both academics and students silenced or forced out of their positions because they would not comply with the dogma. Look just at two UK cases, the harassment of Professor Kathleen Stock of Sussex University, and of Jo Phoenix of the Open University. Also in Germany and in Spain women are being sued for stating facts about men. There are new criminal offences in Europe relating to the crime of "misgendering". I dislike the hypocrites of MAGA who will clearly tolerate no alternative views to their own, but there is a catastrophic lack of freedom of speech in Europe around certain issues, just as in the USA.
Cohen and Andrew Sullivan are just garden variety left wing democrats. The Banter is NOT “ fearless political journalism and commentary”. It is just a clone of the NYT,NPR and WAPO. They are all interchangeable.
Ben, I’m temperamentally inclined to agree with your premise. I used to read FP and became disillusioned. But the Free Press article linked in the comments of your piece sits uncomfortably alongside your take. How do you see that FP piece about authoritarian behavior from the Trump administration fitting into your thesis?
This article is totally inaccurate. The Free Press is not MAGA and it’s not Progressive/Woke. It’s old school Liberal, which means things like they are critical of the US but don’t hate it and they are sympathetic towards trans issues but won’t say a man is a woman. This is the closest thing to independent journalism I have found, where the journalists push you out of your comfort zone by presenting diverse opinions backed up by evidence as well as various moral arguments.
You guys must not be reading TFP on a daily basis. You pick and choose for your arguments. In fact, most of the dailies are Trump bashing, left leaning and sometimes disingenuous.
At such time as you actually do some real research and not just start with your position and look for “facts” to justify it, maybe you’ll read the comment section of possibly a week’s worth of dailies.
That’s when you’ll find how the readers feel… not with some made up sensationalism “journalism” that you’re sporting here.
You have not made the case that Weiss is in error and woke populism is not the greater threat than Trump and MAGA populism, at least to Jews. Quoting from online pundits who agree with you that right populism is the greater threat is not proof, or is insufficient to prove your argument.
Some facts you are aware but have left out.
Andrew Sullivan linked to a NY Magazine Intelligencer column the week he and Times OpEd editor, James Bennet were fired.
Weiss called this a war between woke antisemites and older “institutionalists” at the Times. The Intelligencer made it clear that those the column labeled ” insurrectionists” want to ban speech it disliked and construct news the Times printed to comport with false narratives this tribe asserted were righteous. This distorted, ideological news coverage was confirmed in a Bar Ilan study ( I believe you covered )and can be seen in the Times decisions to print Anti-Jewish op-eds but also in its biased coverage of the Amsterdam pogrom, where it blamed the victims but never once mentioned that the perpetrators were Arabic speaking, ( almost certainly ) Moroccan Muslims.
Is it only the right banning ideas? The documentary October 8 could not find representation. Studios would not support it. The Academy’s documentary division refused to send it to its members. Would you define this as banning ideas? I would.
In book publishing, in main stream magazines and intellectual, non-academic outlets like the NYROB, will not publish essays that are pro-Jewish. No academic journal will print pro-Jewish articles. No citations, no published articles? There goes your academic career before it’s begun. Even established writers will shy away from the Frey for fear of cancelation. The number of congressional staffers, PR associates, foreign relations interns all have heavy anti-Jewish biases. The DSA litmus test on Jews may be closer than you care to admit. The post- modernist, social justice hordes have not yet taken over the Democratic Party but the rise of a Corbyn is not hard to imagine or far away. Fear is so great that self-censorship is a significant issue.
All over social media and in elite academic institutions religious dogma is indoctrinated into students too distracted to read. Not even Adoral can overcome this disinclination. Haidt called this group hyper-tribal and postulated they were desperate to belong to the group while fearful of any idea or fact that called into question their well meaning assumptions about power, race or social justice. Post-colonialism rules and the asserted facts that Jews are imperialist invaders, settler-colonialists, white passing, wealthy, privileged elites with hidden power who should not have the right to speech, assembly or petition their government could cone out or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Indeed, this Czarist work of fiction was dominant in post’67 Soviet anti-Jewish propaganda that gives us these dogmatic perception that Jews are evil.
Jews have the right to die but not to resist that existential determination that they should at the very least have no agency but best if Jews passively accept their fate since they stand in the way of the new Millennium.
Trump is a dangerous actor on whom to place your trust. But might Trump be less dangerous than these post-modern insurrectionists for Jews? Is Weiss exercising editorial judgement as an editor, as a journalist who has observed how irrational and powerful these woke, insurrectionists have become? Is she viewing this as an old fashioned, lesbian liberal who sees this anti-Judaism as the greater threat than, perhaps, you do? Or is she viewing this reality from the lens of a Jew in a post-Holocaust world with Jews denied access to professions, public spaces or news that escapes tribal distortion shaping it into a false, anti-Jewish narrative.
I am certainly sympathetic to Weiss’ view. More importantly, you have not debunked that view and shown her judgement is erroneous. You have asserted it is wrong. You have asserted Trump is the greater threat. You may be right. But for Jews the calculus may be different. For Weiss who watched these “insurrectionists” bully their editors into shaping the Times coverage of Jews that fit an ancient anti-Jewish narrative might be forgive if she thinks these barbarians need to be confronted. It is a return to the 1920s where both political parties are anti-Jewish and antisemetic. What is your political strategy as a Jew when both major parties in a two party system are disinterested in and antithetical to your self-interest and self-preservation? You seek out the lesser of the two evils and you may be very wrong in that tactical judgement. As the old Democratic warriors fade the tactics of slowly devouring institutions gives me pause if the Democratic Party is salvageable home for Jews. Risking that Trump is less bad than these “insurrectionists” may be a rational decision given the open, normalized anti-Jewish hostility from these spoiled, affluent elites growing both in strength and institutional power.
I agree with much of this. In addition, the amount of anti-Trump arguments is so ubiquitous that it would seem superfluous for TFP to cover it as extensively. Yes, there are pro-Trump people working there (and yes, some of them have some pretty shitty arguments, right Batya?). But many working there are very much anti-Trump. But to keep blowing that horn? Seems pointless in this media environment.
Further, listening to the conversations int he Free Press world, it is clear that few people there are anything except critical of what Trump is doing.
No, October 8 is in theatrical release. No agents would represent it, no studio would back its distribution, the academy’s documentary section would not distribute it to Academy members. No streaming channel would It was effectively banned until one of the theater chains dared to challenge the new, woke anti-Jewish consensus.
That's a long route to acknowledging that The Free Press is not for free thinkers but is instead propaganda.
Propaganda? Why do I suspect you have an allergy to facts?
On the contrary, I love them. For example, is the Oct. 8 doc you're referring to that is supposedly being banned the same one that is currently streaming on Hulu? When you take a valid point into the territory of exaggeration and toward the border with lies, you're not doing your cause any favors. As for my claims that the FP is propaganda, I stand by it. Weiss's interviews are so friendly they would make the most optimistic PR rep blush. That's not to say there isn't some worthy work there, just that propaganda can function by sins of omission as well as commission.
Any interview with a politician will get the same canned answers & talking points regardless of the network or interviewer. Being confrontational & hostile will still get the same answers, except now you’ve lost access to that politician and all of their peers. Only remaining options will be the opposition. Bari has chosen the former and allows her staff to criticize the content in their articles. Hardly propaganda.
Strange that you feel compelled to defend access journalism being practiced by the person and platform that ostensibly exist solely to offer an alternative to that age-old tool of mainstream media. So I ask, what makes them any different? Next we’ll have Bari asking Trump how his golf game went.
Dear me, someone is all hot & bothered.
Thank you for saving me the keystrokes to write basically what you have written.
FYI - the documentary film Oct 8th on view at the following services - Amazon. Google, AppleTV, Fandango , YouTube - I wouldn’t call this censorship because in today’s media market - the old players don’t really control the game anymore do they ?
Of course, you wouldn’t because you believe in cancelation of voices that oppose your tribal truth.
Had there not been a theatrical release but a brave theater chain owner the outcome you base your frail thesis would be untrue. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
No agency would represent the film. No studio would distribute it. The Academy refused to distribute it to its membership. The cancelation failed, but the effort to cancel it was strong and persistent.
The problem with antisemites is they are ignorant bigots who assert untruth as fact and otherwise pay no mind to facts. To win your argument that what streaming services initially refused to license the film and their inability to continue that boycott because of the campaign by its producer to counter the narrative that people like your scram to drown out truth.
You know what’s actually a grift? Trying to reap engagement and clout by attacking successful publications with spurious accusations full of hyperbolic and inflammatory language.
Kinda sounds right to me Benjy...I'm trying to understand what Sullivan's beef is about...really. Is it about the name: The Free Press. Seems to be a part of it. If people misunderstand the name then bad on them. Is he (Sullivan) claiming the name and the content are misleading? I'm gonna go back a reread what he said. Perhaps he has some legit gripes. Of course she has a point of view and if you know anything at all about he kerfuffle with The NY Times, you'll get it. At any rate, since I started reading The FP, as someone who came of age in the 60s, it reminded me of the anti-establishment pub we read to get the real 411.
Hunny p
I unsubsubcribed to the so-called "Free Press" last summer and have never looked back. You couldn't pay me enough to read that drivel again.
Yeah they lost me with that ridiculous Lefty MAGA puff piece. What garbage 😡
The publication quickly plummeted after October 7th and the elevation of goons like Ackman.
She’s so stupid lol
Why is Bari the favorite punching bag for every journalist?
Because she’s successful.
Because we mentally never left junior high school.
You cherry pick and then paint the entire publication with a very broad brush. What you say is not true so good luck with your following while tFp is over a million now and far more balanced than what i just read from you. Hmm.
Re: Freedom and Europe -- the recent piece from Yascha Mounk on the rate of speech-related imprisonments in the UK (over 12,000 arrents in 2023!) should raise intense alarm bells. https://www.persuasion.community/p/europe-really-is-jailing-people-for?r=1417y&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
This sounds more and more like an argument that goes like this: "You can't trust these other people but you can trust me. They are one sided but I am not." But are they? Are you?
One reliable feature of the modern "post news" world of commentary is the degree to which the self-appointed pundits embody the behaviors that they professed to deplore.
In many ways, however, the media market has become terrificly energized. It's chaotic and there are zero reliable centers. It now looks like an impressive scatter diagram.
Bari is starting to expose the cracks in the Trump administration. Took her time but this is a good read.
https://www.thefp.com/p/is-donald-trump-breaking-the-law
Yes, Ben is always a day late.
Ben [covering eyes with hands]: WHY WON’T THEY CRITICIZE TRUMP?!
Republican investors and financial backers for the Free Press so Bari is not free to be a full journalist. Similar to what you see at WAPO.
I’m not so sure you’re characterizing her backers accurately, but this has nothing to do with my comment in any event. And there’s no such thing as a “full journalist.” The bottom line is people who like to trash the FP always cherry-pick a couple articles, usually mischaracterize them, and ignore other articles that prove their narrative wrong.
The Free Press is a great outlet. But they’re small, not a 500 person newsroom. They’re not deranged like the NYT and CNN and others and clearly that triggers many on the left. And they’re not rabidly anti Israel, which triggers the far left and the far right.
What news source would you recommend NPR? PBS? NYT? Washington Post? Fox News? National Review? They all have their bias. And so do you. I happen to find The Free Press a good alternative.
Sadly, European University campuses HAVE become a hot-bed of speech policing and cancel culture related to gender ideology, and there are hundreds of cases of both academics and students silenced or forced out of their positions because they would not comply with the dogma. Look just at two UK cases, the harassment of Professor Kathleen Stock of Sussex University, and of Jo Phoenix of the Open University. Also in Germany and in Spain women are being sued for stating facts about men. There are new criminal offences in Europe relating to the crime of "misgendering". I dislike the hypocrites of MAGA who will clearly tolerate no alternative views to their own, but there is a catastrophic lack of freedom of speech in Europe around certain issues, just as in the USA.
Kathleen Stock and Jo Phoenix might question your assertion about the state of European universities.
Cohen and Andrew Sullivan are just garden variety left wing democrats. The Banter is NOT “ fearless political journalism and commentary”. It is just a clone of the NYT,NPR and WAPO. They are all interchangeable.
Ben, I’m temperamentally inclined to agree with your premise. I used to read FP and became disillusioned. But the Free Press article linked in the comments of your piece sits uncomfortably alongside your take. How do you see that FP piece about authoritarian behavior from the Trump administration fitting into your thesis?
This article is totally inaccurate. The Free Press is not MAGA and it’s not Progressive/Woke. It’s old school Liberal, which means things like they are critical of the US but don’t hate it and they are sympathetic towards trans issues but won’t say a man is a woman. This is the closest thing to independent journalism I have found, where the journalists push you out of your comfort zone by presenting diverse opinions backed up by evidence as well as various moral arguments.
You guys must not be reading TFP on a daily basis. You pick and choose for your arguments. In fact, most of the dailies are Trump bashing, left leaning and sometimes disingenuous.
At such time as you actually do some real research and not just start with your position and look for “facts” to justify it, maybe you’ll read the comment section of possibly a week’s worth of dailies.
That’s when you’ll find how the readers feel… not with some made up sensationalism “journalism” that you’re sporting here.