Times, I finally quit you

[mme_hardy]

I started being a New York Times subscriber in 1983. I continued to subscribe, everywhere I could get delivery, up until today. It's been a long slow slide for me, from the disgraceful coverage of the Iraq war onward, as the Times became, drip by drip, more up its own nose, more elitist, and more concerned with ingratiating itself to power than with exposing it. I don't have to call out the incidents; they're notorious, and I've raved about them here. In the last year, though, they've gone from minimizing white supremacism -- including refusing to use the actual phrase, far less "neo-Nazi" -- to reaching out to the white supremacists and running their letters as a full-page issue.

And let us be clear. If you're okay with Donald Trump in 2018, you support white supremacy. You may be doing it with a wink and a nudge, but you've chosen your side.

What finally made me do it? This headline and subhead:

Supporters Fear Trump's Speech Will Lack The Edge They Love

As President Trump prepares for his first State of the Union address on Tuesday, hard-line nationalists worry that he will reach for bipartisanship rather than ideological purity.

"Hard-line nationalists". Yup. That's the phrase.

To unsubscribe from the Times you can't use a webform; you have to "chat". Here's my chat. Note the cut-and-paste responses, which show that the Times is seeing a lot of reactions like mine.

Alexis:
Hi there! Thank you for contacting the The New York Times! How may I help you today?

Mme. Hardy: I have had it with the Times's sympathetic coverage of white nationalism and neo-Nazis. I want to cancel my subscription.
Alexis: I am sorry if we have offended you and disappointed you.
Alexis:
We only hope to spark debate when it comes to critical issues as such.
Have you tried commenting on articles? Be a voice of change! We would love your feedback on anything that you agree or disagree with

Alexis:
Would you be interested in 50% off your delivery?
Yes, because the solution to white supremacy is cheaper white supremacy.

Mme. Hardy: You have deeply disappointed me. I've been a subscriber, one way and another, for over thirty years.
Alexis:
Everyone has their own views on these issues and I do understand the frustration as I can agree with some of it, but when I am frustrated, I voice my feelings. Why not stay and do the same? If no one voiced their opposition, there would be no debate.

Alexis:
We would hate to lose a loyal and dedicated subscriber such as yourself.

Mme. Hardy: I have *been* voicing my opposition in comments for years.
Mme. Hardy: The Times responded by firing the Public Editor.
Mme. Hardy: The Times has stopped listening to my comments.
Mme. Hardy: And no, I don't want a discount. I don't want this stuff coming into my home, electronically or physically, any more.
Alexis:
Well we are sad to see you go and hopefully you will come back to us in the future when we aren't disappointing you anymore.
I find the above bit of mailmerge completely hilarious.
Alexis:
Please give me a moment to cancel your subscription.

And that's it.

Comments

[nineveh_uk]

That Twitter thread makes a very good point. "both sides-ism" is a real problem in modern journalism. When one side is neo-Nazism, then no, it is not something to which equal time should be given!

[sovay]

When one side is neo-Nazism, then no, it is not something to which equal time should be given!

This Karl Popper cartoon understandably keeps coming around on my friendlist.

[nineveh_uk]

I hadn't seen that cartoon before, it's excellent.