[SurfingToad]

The NYT still has a staff consisting of some of the most excellent writers and reporters of our time. That said, they have definitely been wobbling in the editorial compartement lately. They're overcorrecting as if they've lost their balance (and they probably have).

I think the most exciting way to look at the situation is that no one is really to blame. There are some fucky emergent collective dynamics about, acting like some mythical monster with hapless individuals as its neurons. A grasshopper never chooses to become a locust; it transforms into one when there are too many grasshoppers at the same place bumping into each other. It's no longer an individual. It's part of the swarm. And with the swarm comes destruction.

There's a tendency for cults to suddenly become destructive. Like they've become Harlon Ellis' AI that has no mouth and must scream. Cursed with sudden uncontrollable sentience, it seeks revenge. The Rajneesh movement and Aum Shinrikyo both carried out biological warfare. And you can see these destructive tendencies in most cults, for some reason.

And now, literally connected in a globe-spanning network we see cult-like behavior take on a whole new dimension.

The editorial staff at NYT obviously wants to make good, honest decisions and carry out an important social mission to the benefit of us all. But what if it's not their choice anymore? What if there are collective dynamics that supersede individual agency?

(I do not mean to say that the NYT operates as a cult; it's more that we might be witnessing the sort of dynamics we traditionally see in cults play out across the social media landscape at large.)

[zarkov99]

How can you absolve the people working there from their responsibility? They are not grasshoppers, they have, I assume, a functioning prefrontal cortex and can see the corruption as plainly as anyone else. Anyone left at the NYT is there by choice and is a willing participant in this disgrace.

[TeaDrunk]

I think this can become more difficult when you consider-- where else would they gain enough money to feed themselves, their dependents, and otherwise remain employed? Their industry is already dying, the NYT is one of the few still stable bets that they can remain in their specialty. Otherwise they may be risking poverty while they re-train into a new specialty and a permanent decrease of lifetime earnings during their re-training period, which will then go on to impact any children they have.

I don't mean to say that this is a good or morally correct choice by society's notion, merely that the choice may be more difficult individually.

[zarkov99]

I think you are being overly charitable. The NYT staff is far from unemployable elsewhere. They just made a calculus that their conscience, and the nation's soul, are not worth the loss of personal status that a departure from what used to be the worlds best newspaper might engender. For that choice they deserve nothing but disdain.