The New York Times ceases to serve its purpose if we’re leaving out stuff that’s obvious.
Actually a funny admission. Taken literally, this almost means The New York Times’ purpose is to say stuff that’s obvious, which of course is a very distinct purpose from informing people about nonobvious important things.
And whatever people think, my job at the Times is to give everyone their due, and to give everyone’s point of view a forum and help them get that point of view into any given story.
This of course can’t be literally true: most people and most views don’t get represented in The New York Times.
Combining these two self-assessments, could one maybe say that the purpose of The New York Times is to comb through the obvious information in order to define the Overton Window for what the “legitimate” views on a topic are? 🤔
Cade Metz’s argument seems to be that what he wrote is basically some true stuff that his readers care about and which wasn’t actually that harmful to share. Which seems like a valid argument in favor of writing it.
However, the fact that he has made a valid argument in favor of writing it does not mean that we aren’t allowed to be interested in why his readers find certain things interesting to read about. These self-assessments seem like evidence about that to me.
But it’s not (obviously, and it’s really comical) to be taken literally, that’s the beauty of interpretation: can we interpret the message to readers as ‘those to whom the obvious must be shown’? And can we say that their purpose is to inform people who do not grasp it?
Actually a funny admission. Taken literally, this almost means The New York Times’ purpose is to say stuff that’s obvious, which of course is a very distinct purpose from informing people about nonobvious important things.
This of course can’t be literally true: most people and most views don’t get represented in The New York Times.
Combining these two self-assessments, could one maybe say that the purpose of The New York Times is to comb through the obvious information in order to define the Overton Window for what the “legitimate” views on a topic are? 🤔
This reads as a gotcha to me rather than as a comment actually trying to understand the argument being made.
Cade Metz’s argument seems to be that what he wrote is basically some true stuff that his readers care about and which wasn’t actually that harmful to share. Which seems like a valid argument in favor of writing it.
However, the fact that he has made a valid argument in favor of writing it does not mean that we aren’t allowed to be interested in why his readers find certain things interesting to read about. These self-assessments seem like evidence about that to me.
But it’s not (obviously, and it’s really comical) to be taken literally, that’s the beauty of interpretation: can we interpret the message to readers as ‘those to whom the obvious must be shown’? And can we say that their purpose is to inform people who do not grasp it?