The New York Times Anti-Trans Crusade
Usually the format of these posts is a joke, a parody of some idiot at the NY Times like Ross Douthat or David Brooks, but sometimes satire fails. This is one of those times.
People who follow the NY Times are probably aware that they have been running scare stories about Trans people recently. But it’s easy to miss how bad it’s been.
Yesterday, a bunch of writers launched a joint letter at The NY Times protesting their creepy anti-Trans crusade. But even more than a simple protest, it’s a detailed examination of the failures of journalism in the Times pieces. They dig into the bias, the shoddy evidence, and the confounding fact that the the Times has spent so much space pushing a particular point of view that reinforces so much of the right’s campaign against Trans people, and the larger LGBTQ community, in states such as Florida and through the rest of the country.
This article by former G/O editor Tom Scocca is great background to the Times crusade.
Overwhelmingly, the stories have lacked evidence, failed to make a case for concern, and completely misrepresented sources. They have excluded contrary voices, despite their stated objective when it comes to right wing scares of presenting all of the story.
But what also stands out is not just the bad quality, but the fantastic quantity of it. In the past eight months, 15,000 words have been assigned to front page stories “just asking questions” about trans kids. 11,000 in the Times Magazine. Another 4,200 to front page stories from conservative culture warrior Michael Powell casting shade on trans people.
26,000 words is not normal behavior for a newspaper. 50,000 words is the length of The Great Gatsby.
As Scocca notes, this is what the press does when it launches a crusade. It’s what Hearst did when he tried to drum up support for war on the Spanish, or what Fox did to create a stampede of fear of a war on Christmas.
The Letter
The letter released yesterday in protest is almost the exact opposite of the infamous Harper’s Letter, which was a gross bit of propaganda disingenously posing as a plea for free expression. As critics quickly noted, what the Harper’s organizers, including people like Bari Weiss and Thomas Chatterton Williams, called suppression of free speech was in fact free speech in action. The Harpers Letter was a hypocritical effort to attack criticism of elites while pretending to be something completely different.
Meanwhile, the letter to the NY Times was quite open about its methods and goals. It did not cast vague aspersions, it called into question specific actions, and instead of simply calling for an end to speech it didn’t like, it called for an application of long standing journalistic standards.
The Signers
Followers of the old Deadspin and Splinter will recognize a number of the many, many signers. In addition to Tom Scocca, there are people like Ashley Feinberg, Kelsey McKinney, Drew Magary, Hamilton Nolan, Laura Wagner, Jia Tolentino, Bobby Finger, Charlie Jane Anders, and many others from the old G/O crew, along with a far larger number of writers from other platforms.
And to be clear, this was done at a significant risk. The Times is a huge publisher, and they have a history of refusing to hire critics. People like Bret Stephens have made it clear that they keep track of critics and go to considerable lengths to push for professional consequences for things as minor as a joking tweet.
But the signers went ahead anyway, despite many being freelancers with no fixed place of employment and no guarantee of a paycheck at the end of the month, unlike the writers and editors at the Times behind this crusade.
One of the running excuses that the Times uses to justify terrible journalism is how they had no choice, standards require something. And yet, as shown by their anti-Trans campaign, those standards are incredibly flexible when they feel like it. The people in power at the Times have every opportunity to be as brave as the signers of this letter. They just choose not to care.
…so…this might be tangential…but not as oblique as all that, I think
…a little while ago in news terms scotland announced a change to their law that would allow for, essentially, greater self-determination in being legally recognized as either having transitioned or electing to do so
…from a cynic’s perspective it was potentially a useful wedge issue to further demonstrate that the scots were behind more progressive policy than westminster…& to some extent it worked since the tories found it necessary to intercede & block the law…so far, so placate-the-mail-&-telegraph-readers & who cares if it pushes people pro-scottish-independence…we already told them they can’t have another go at that…to which a certain amount of muttering was done about maybe letting the next general election be a proxy vote for independence
…then the press got its teeth into a story about their idea of a unicorn…a real-life outlier case that ticked all the boxes…a convicted rapist laying claim to the right to self-identity as a woman in a bid to be housed in the female prison estate
…it’s been “a whole thing”…including among other bits of ostensibly upstanding journalism a “gotcha” interview with one n. sturgeon when her interviewer fixated on her use of the pronoun “she” to refer to the criminal in question…& was less than receptive to her pointing out she was trying to consider the specifics of what was at issue & what best to do about it rather than the business of ginning up a juicy headline or three
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/11/nicola-sturgeon-faces-fortnight-of-criticism-over-gender-recognition-bill
…that was five days or so ago…& mentions “a fortnight of criticism”
…& just yesterday…”out of nowhere”…she announced she’d be stepping down as first minister as soon as they can vote her replacement in to the post
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/feb/16/sturgeon-resignation-might-delay-new-scotland-independence-vote-by-five-years
…it might have pushed the cause of independence back…maybe even years…but it sure as hell hasn’t done the debate about trans (&/or associated marginalized groups) rights a lot of good
…more than a fair share of which can, sadly, be laid at a succession of media doors in a fashion eerily reminiscent of the NYT in that regard
It’s tough in the UK because the Grauniad has already been in the “just asking questions” camp longer than the NY Times.
One of the big issues with pushing progressive laws is that it’s essential to have a press that will tell positive stories of transition. There has to be a counterweight to unicorn stories, just as with the civil rights and gay rights movements there needed to be a lot of positive stories of everyday people dealing in normal ways with black and white coworkers getting along or straight people living next door to a gay couple.
What the letter is pointing out is that the Times reporters and editors have been overwhelmingly focusing on risks, problems, and a giant cloud of possible theoretical damage. They simply won’t put anything into perspective.
And the Times is lying about how they creating a meaningful framework, because they are wildly overrepresenting what’s going on, both in terms of maximizing risks and minimizing benefits, or for that matter even how often any of this comes up at all.
Half a novel in eight months! That’s not reporting, that’s just an agenda.
…I couldn’t speak for whether it’d be the cart or the horse but there’s a part of both the approach the times (& others) in the states & (arguably but not entirely the rightward-leaning) press in the UK have presented…call it the debate…which is in keeping with the dictates of their business model but does a disservice to the people most directly affected…the outliers are where the interest (prurient or otherwise) is greatest…& they lend themselves to arguing things by taking them to their “logical conclusions”
…but it’s a cliché that legislation predicated on outlying cases makes for shit laws…so it’s pretty much the opposite of a productive approach to genuine, long-term reform of the sort required
…there’s a lot of commentary & no little “debate” but the opposing interests can’t even agree to a basic definition of terms…granted nomenclature is at the crux of some of the issues involved but it can’t be beyond the wit of man to say “under regular circumstances the law is thus – but these are circumstances that would qualify as not-regular & in such cases some alternatives are appropriate as adjudged on a case by case basis”
…curiously enough there’s one instance where I think the UK has demonstrated an ability to be fairly adroit about the edge case thing…which would be assisted suicide
…the fear being that absent some tight laws the potential existed for people to be coerced into it in an unholy blend of fraud & elder abuse…but the fact that some people in some circumstances might legitimately wish to cut short their suffering is recognized…so the law is pretty clear about it being illegal…but where it can be demonstrated that it belongs in the latter category surviving spouses who, say, abet their loved one in making a one-way trip to dignitas…those cases are simply not prosecuted, which is at the discretion of the CPS
…it’s not perfect or anything…but I think it argues pretty strongly that they’d rather “debate” this one than solve it?
I think that’s right, and one of the important things about looking at the history of a writer or an institution is seeing how fast and loose they are with the importance of actual debate. It’s almost always a joke.
It’s possible to have good takes on freedom and responsibility and when legal constraints are necessary, but 98% of the current “free speech” crowd doesn’t want any of it. They want debate on their terms alone for only the people they like when they want it. And they’ll spend their lives gaslighting about what they’re doing.
I had no idea about the letter, so thank you for that. I signed it immediately when I saw the link to do so.
I started out as a print journalist right out of college. It was a long, long time ago. I haven’t subscribed to a paper in DECADES, despite the fact that I want to know what’s going on in the world. The state of the NYT is pretty emblematic about what’s going on at least in the US, which saddens me greatly.
I’m glad you, @bluedogcollar, have the stomach to watch all this and comment on it. I just don’t anymore.
ETA: And now that I see @SplinterRIP‘s comment, I’m reminded that this is not limited to the US.