Surprise: both hot takes AND pompous pieties of older white men on #MeToo are neither helpful nor insightful.
Other surprise: the pattern of layered cons & repeated evasions Ghomeshi used on older white Canadian males which allowed him to get away with his intolerably offensive to outright criminal behavior for over a decade under the roof of the Canadian government’s radio & TV network, turn out to be just as effective in pulling the wool over just as clueless older white males in this country.
Genuine not sarcastic surprise: What TF was the editor of the NYRoB even thinking, dipping his oar into these choppy waters? Oh, wait: he’s an older white male.
Kind of paint with the broad brush of a bigot, don’t you. I would point out that most men aren’t complete asses to women, and never have been. The MeToo movement is making a vitally important point but like you some of its adherents are in danger of losing perspective.
The NYRB, like TPM, is a private business, not a government entity. Just as Mr. Marshall is perfectly within his rights – as a business owner – to fire an employee who wrote a piece he felt undermined TPM’s brand or reputation, so too is the NYRB.
Businesses respond to market demands; if not, they go bankrupt (or continue as money-losing charities). That’s just how free enterprise works. So not “censorship” in that sense.
Now, you may believe this particular business decision showed poor judgement – and undermined your view of what the NYRB should be – and I totally respect that. But not sure how that’s “censorship”.
I agree with your general point. Someone can certainly be fired for whatever reason. That is not my point. I am more worried about firing the respected editor of a respected journal because you don’t like an editorial decision he or she made. If you’re on the Board, of course you can fire whom you like. But, yes, it is a form of censorship.
You can’t censor something that’s been published? I’d refer you to totalitarian governments in the past. But that’s beside the point. You can certainly fire someone to avoid having their point of view ever appear again. Let’s call it preemptive censorship, not “ex post.” Poor choice of words.
The publisher determined the material was not acceptable to appear in the publication. And, yeah, the next editor SHOULD think twice. Because, you know, NO ONE has a “right” to be published in someone else’s publication, not first amendment, and it’s not censorship. You think you can walk into ANY publication and demand they publish what you demand because otherwise it’s censorship? Jeez, where did you get that idea? Thst’s Just BS. Ask Josh, he’s a publisher. Ain’t going to happen. And to expect otherwise is just foolish.
The definition of censorship given by the current Oxford Dictionary of Media and Communication is one of the more useful—“any regime or context in which the content of what is publically expressed, exhibited, published, broadcast, or otherwise distributed is regulated or in which the circulation of information is controlled,” or “a regulatory system for vetting, editing, and prohibiting particular forms of public expression,” or, even more generally, “the practice and process of suppression or any particular instance of this.” This definition’s contemporary focus is on the institutional application of control, distinguishing legally administrated regimes and contexts from private, individual, or singular instances, and asserting as key the complex fact of public expression.
In short there is a “legal definition” of censorship and a more generic definition. They aren’t exactly the same. Here the publication has sent a clear signal that it is going to censor essays that might offend the “MeToo” movement.
A private business can engage in self-censorship if it wishes but that self-censorship endangers the ability of all of us to reflect on controversial ideas.
Long-time subscriber to NYRB here. I haven’t read the articles in question yet. But I am concerned about the signal this firing sends. I just found out the editor and a long-time contributor was fired for (apparently) publishing an article and then giving an interview discussing the rationale behind publishing it. I find it hard to believe the article was so offensive or wrong-headed as to justify summary dismissal of the editor.
Also: if #metoo is so damn powerful, how the hell is Kavanaugh still being considered? If Buruma is fired but Kavanaugh is confirmed, I think something is very wrong.
This is a sad day … I have not read the piece but will try to. Any cultural change is jagged and hurtful . It makes no sense to attack those who want to understand it. If racists change their beliefs, we encourage them. But the Me Too Movement will not accommodate anything other than their own voice…
Now I am waiting for the insults and piling on…
And I suspect most men don’t make fools of themselves by making this a “censorship” issue and doubling down When called on it. Know when to shut up. As my wife and many close women friends (and sometimes guys too) remind me and other men in our circke from time to time: at times men just need to stop being guys and be men. Your particularly continuing “explaining” to tena is a river too far. Just stop.
Why do Buruma’s defenders here keep saying he was fired simply for publishing Ghomeshi’s essay? We don’t know that.
My guess is he got fired for a combination of: a) ramming the piece through despite concerns from other editors; b) failing to properly fact check or edit it or exert any due diligence (the essay contained numerous factual errors, in addition to being poorly written); and c) embarrassing himself and NYRB in that telling Slate interview, where through his own blindly confident ignorance, he first practically bragged about a and b, then showed how truly unqualified and unprepared he is to discuss sexual assault at all, let alone in a prominent publication.
