Daily Archives: 30 June 2017

The Specialness of Snowflakes

Posted on by
Reply

The New York Times newsroom is going to walk out (as I write this) on Thursday because they don’t like the cutbacks in editors (an understandable concern, even if the newsroom denizens offered no alternative) and other personnel reductions the paper is being forced to make in an effort to reduce costs to a survivable level.  It’s their plaints, though, that drew my attention.  The copy editors group wrote a letter to Executive Editor Dean Baquet and Managing Editor Joseph Kahn in which they said in part,

You often speak about the importance of engaging readers, of valuing, investing, and giving a voice to readers. Dean and Joe: we are your readers, and you have turned your backs on us.

News flash, guys.  Baquet’s and Kahn’s readers, the NYT‘s readers, are the customers who pay around $325/yr for a subscription, or more than $500/yr for both print and online subscriptions.  You guys get paid to read your boss’ paper in order to make error corrections.

NYT reporters sent a letter to the same targets in solidarity with the copy editors.

Requiring them to dance for their supper sends a clear message to them, and to us, that the respect we have shown the Times will not be reciprocated.

Respect has to be earned, guys.  You have a legitimate beef regarding the lack of transparency in personnel moves your paper is making (another part of your letter), but respect has to be earned the same way any honest American earns it: through actual deeds.  You guys don’t get respect just because you think you’re special.  In particular, you utterly disrespect your readers—those paying customers—when you masquerade unsubstantiated rumors, which you amusingly attribute to “senior officials,” to sources who “are speaking anonymously because they’re not authorized to speak,” and the like, as fact.  And you do that while also carefully declining to corroborate those rumors with on-the-record remarks.

Question for you both—and for Baquet and Kahn—when y’all come back to work on Friday (today, as I post this): did anyone notice your absence?  Besides the janitors, I mean.  Folks like actual customers.

Sanctuary Cities

Posted on by
1

For the Left it means sanctuary from inconvenient laws.  Nevertheless, the House has passed two bills aimed at eliminating such sanctuary by reducing the ability of local cities and counties to give sanctuary to illegal aliens.  One such is the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, which looks to persuade—notice that: not force, as many on the Left insist it does—locals to hold folks in jail who’ve already been arrested by locals for local violations for up to 48 hours in response to an ICE detainer.  Kate Steinle was murdered by an illegal alien who had just been released—deliberately in contradiction of an ICE request.  Opponents, though, insist that

cooperation [with ICE] would undermine trust in law enforcement in immigrant communities….

This is just cynical: requiring that laws be obeyed (NSCA, after all, only requires existing procedure be followed) undermines respect for law and law enforcement.  Sure.

The other bill, “Kate’s Law,” for the unfortunate Ms Steinle, whose murderer was a five-times deported and reentered illegally alien, would successively increase the price of repeatedly illegally reentering the US after deportation.  The protests from the Progressive-Democrats in Congress are just as loud and foolish on this one.

It’s stupid, it has nothing to do with the criminal act that was done against Kate Steinle, which was a terrible thing[.]

Except that it has everything to do with that “terrible thing.”  Had the law been in effect at the time, it’s possible—likely, even—that Steinle’s multiply-deported and reentered murderer would have been in jail at time and Steinle would be alive today.  Of course, maybe not, too, but as the Progressive-Democrats are wont to say, “If it saves just one life….”

Oh, wait….