|
I keep hearing this. Every time the NYT writes an article on X, while being a hypocrite on X, "Do you think the guy who wrote this was also in charge of X at the NYT?" It's a valid counterpoint. The guy who wrote about X is not, usually, in charge of X. Agreed. The criticism, however, is not about the author - it's about the organization that endorses both the action X, and the criticism of X. The NYT is an opinionated organization, not a public wall open to whoever wants to throw things at it. They have an editorial stance. When they write criticisms of X, they are implicitly - as an organization - criticizing X. When they do X themselves, they are - as an organization - implicitly endorsing X. When they wish to distance themselves from a criticism in an article, they explicitly point out - hey, this is an Op-Ed from such-and-such author, and doesn't represent the views of the NYT. When it's not an Op-Ed, and/or when it's not disavowed, they are saying: this article represents the views of the NYT. The writer is not a hypocrite. The organization, however, is. There's nothing illogical or invalid about holding the organization accountable for doing bad things, and for pointing out that the organization is trying to earn goodwill from the public by being "against X" while perpetrating the act themselves. |