The NYT and The Athletic

Sometimes people really care about something and are willing to act regardless of the action's impact on their careers. Once upon a time, this was called courage of one's convictions.

 

But would you say that if their political beliefs were different than yours?

 

Sure. I only object to when people take a stand and then say criticism is persecution.

 

Agreed.

 

Honestly I’ll give them a pass. It’s pretty fucked up they overturned Roe v Wade. Tweet your outrage to your hearts content about this one, it’s warranted, but spare me all your other dumb tweets about your gender journey or whatever

 

Unless you're the Kraken chick.

 

I guess I'm not sure why any journalist feels entitled to a public social media platform from which to express their opinion.

And further doesn't understand why that expression would call their professional disinterest into question.

 

To the latter, some (not me) would argue that disinterest is a myth, everything is political, and there is no neutral. Fundamentalism.

 

Back when media was more lucrative and more competitive, people strived to be viewed as unbiased. Funny how that worked.

 

Agreed, and understood. But those (mostly younger) folks are wrong.

Objectivity is a myth.

Disinterest is not.

 

Even though the Rovell and Front Office Stories came out about The Athletic losing money, I heard this from a friend of mine over the weekend:
Two Athletic writers were covering a baseball game over the weekend. Supposedly all 62 pro hoops writers are headed to the Vegas Summer League, primarily just to meet one another. The hotel rooms alone cost $266,000. They just laughed about the free ride they continue to take on expense accounts.

 

That can't be sustainable, can it?