Our profile of a Nazi sympathizer in Ohio elicited significant criticism from readers. Our national editor weighs in.
Readers Accuse Us of Normalizing a Nazi Sympathizer; We Respond.
The complete lack of self-awareness in this sentence is truly shocking.
The responded to the well-deserved critique of their Nazi normalizing piece. I don’t find this response reassuring. There is no accountability, no real admission of a mistake. I hold the NYT to a higher standard than this.
Remember that public editor position you eliminated ? You could use a whole department of public editors frankly. It’s daily. “We regret the degree to which the piece offended so many readers.”
How does the get the Nazi normalizing piece wrong, AND the apology wrong? “We regret the degree to which the piece offended so many readers” takes no responsibility for the obvious: THE TIMES DID THE OFFENDING
The NYTimes acknowledges they should have pushed back more on the Nazi sympathy article but doesn't explain why they didn't (other than a weird "he was tired from reporting on hurricanes")
The response is still lacking in context & transparency. What was the convo that led to the assignment? What edits were made in the “agonizing” over tone? Why the lack of voices of color, or historical context for racist activity in the region?
. nonapologizes that they regret made readers feel bad by writing a Nazi puff-piece. You can't improve quality if you can't acknowledge error. This was bad writing, bad judgment, bad analysis. Try again.
Who are the “many” who are oblivious to how normal, pervasive and virulent racial hatred is in America? What sheltered lives do they live?
The obtuseness shown in this apology is even more offensive and confirms that NYT editors are on the wrong track. "We regret the degree to which the piece offended so many readers. "
"You mad, bro?" -- a quick take of NYT's response to the Nazi sympathizer clapback. This response also illustrates why the defunct public editor was so valuable.
Also fails to appreciate/reflect on power this story will have circulating online, or role in that system.
The responds to criticism of its "Nazi next door" profile.
The national editor responds to criticisms: "Readers Accuse Us of Normalizing a Nazi Sympathizer; We Respond"
The mansplaination on the Nazis-are-just-like-us-and-put chili-flakes-in-their-pasta-too story! Yeah, I hear ya, dude. And ... Imma gonna say nay: Readers Accuse Us of Normalizing a Nazi Sympathizer; We Respond via
"The point of the story was not to normalize anything but to describe the degree to which hate and extremism have become far more normal in American life than many of us want to think." Lordy bagordy that's some dizzying spin.
Readers Accuse Us of Normalizing a Nazi Sympathizer; We Respond - Times responds to this, but not the op ed about all men being violent. Buh?
It's not coming out and saying it directly, but brass seems to know that their Nazi feature was a failure of journalism. This #sorrynotsorry post offers excuses (like reporter was busy with other assignments) and calls the piece 'imperfect.'
"Our reporter and his editors agonized over the tone and content of the article."
“What we think is indisputable, though, is the need to shed more light, not less, on the most extreme corners of American life and the people who inhabit them. That’s what the story, however imperfectly, tried to do”
Inadequate response from about sympathetic KKK article. Misses the point. As a former journalist, I see why stories like this are done. Don't describe him as "polite" and how he'd "please anyone's mother" Good Lord. Bad editing!
Cannibals: just like us, but with quirky dietary preferences. The NYT on their profile of a neo-Nazi.
This response from the to the criticism of their sympathetic Nazi profile is wishy-washy garbage
"We regret the degree to which the piece offended so many readers." I tried something like this with my wife - once. ONCE. I am sorry you were offended is not an apology. Readers Accuse Us of Normalizing a Nazi Sympathizer; We Respond
I disagreed w/ many criticisms of this piece but I think this response misses the most cogent one: did not indicate whether fascist ranks are growing /this guy becoming more "normal"
The rationalization of the normalization of the normalization of nazism
While I can understand the rationale for doing this frankly I am tired of hearing about how editors and reporters “agonized” over whether to publish this or that story. This is becoming a cop out phrase for avoiding moral responsibility.
Readers Accuse Us of Normalizing a Nazi Sympathizer; We Respond - New York Times via thanks
Did you see the response to the criticism? I think they owned it.
It's not so much that I was offended, tho I was. It's that your reporter didn't seem very offended at all.
This is so polite. Polite and “understanding.” Frankly, I’d have more respect for a publication that told idiotic readers to get bent and grow the hell up. (Maybe that’s why I’m not in charge? I thought so.)
Piece could maybe have been good if insightful but there was no conclusion Readers Accuse Us of Normalizing a Nazi Sympathizer; We Respond via
Shorter : we're sorry if any of you were offended by our recent PR piece for Nazis. Please read our upcoming Lifestyle features, "My Big Fat Nazi Wedding," and "Why Brides Should Wear White Hoods."
Readers Accuse Us of Normalizing a Nazi Sympathizer; We Respond
Here’s what the says it was trying to do, “however imperfectly.” Readers Accuse Us of Normalizing a Nazi Sympathizer; We Respond
Readers Accuse of Normalizing a Nazi Sympathizer; We Respond, by #journalism