Bennet's piece is long, but a mostly worthwhile read:
https://www.economist.com/1843/2023/12/14/when-the-new-york-times-lost-its-way
It doesn't exactly cover him in glory, which may or may not have been
intentional, but that is probably good nonetheless. He clearly made a
bunch of mistakes during the aftermath of the Cotton op-ed affair,
mostly of the kind that I would characterize as "cowardice", but
honestly the gold medal on that front goes to none other than AG
Sulzberger, who could have and should have told the entire newsroom
staff to choose between being journalists at the New York Times or
activists on the sidewalk working the find-a-new-job beat.
One thing that jumped out at me that seems minor but really clearly
illustrates a blind spot in approaching the journalistic enterprise with
good faith is his reference to "a certain Murdoch-owned cable-news
network". Instead of conjuring the image of a shadowy media empire, led
by a deeply ideologically-motivated puppet master, and pushing
distortions and untruths on useful idiots and the unwitting, could he
just have said "Fox News"?
"Sequel." A word almost synonymous with "apprehension". In the case of beloved movies, a sequel is often highly-anticipated but also feared because the history of sequels is so mixed. Let's look at a few case studies. The Godfather (1972) → The Godfather Part II (1974) This is the most basic kind of good sequel: another great story, filmed solidly, to follow up a great original. It's actually a bookend to the original, with the scenes divided between Vito Corleone's back story and those chronicling Michael's downfall, but it qualifies as a sequel in the most basic sense that it continues the story begun in the original film. While the first movie satisfyingly ended with Michael symbolically becoming his father despite his protestations to Kay in the first act, from the perspective of the combined saga (let's just do the right thing at the beginning and pretend Part III had never been made) it merely foreshadows his irreversible destruction of t...
Comments