• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NYT subscribers dropping paper over climate column

Renae

Renae

Banned
Suspended
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
50,241
Reaction score
19,243
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
[h=2]A new columnist at The New York Times and his views on climate change have prompted some readers to cancel their subscriptions in protest.[/h]In his first column for the Times, Bret Stephens said advocates for climate policy can take a lesson from Hillary Clinton's failed presidential campaign and her reliance on data to predict the election.
"We live in a world in which data convey authority. But authority has a way of descending to certitude, and certitude begets hubris," Stephens wrote. "Claiming total certainty about the science traduces the spirit of science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves wrong."
Click to expand...
New York Times subscribers dropping paper over climate column - Apr. 30, 2017

Dude writes use you head about climate science, ppl go ape ****, amusing,
 
Seems like a petty thing to remove your subscription over.
 
Environmentalists tend to be liberal and tend to be offended by nearly everything, especially free speech.
 
jimbo said:
Environmentalists tend to be liberal and tend to be offended by nearly everything, especially free speech.
Click to expand...

not to hijack the thread, but what are the 'hot button' issues in order of importance to the left-center-right.

In no specific order, my list is:

1) 2nd amendment
2) abortion
3) immigration
4) climate change
5) health care
6) taxes
7) 1st amendment
8) foreign policy
What am I leaving out?
 
TheGoverness said:
Seems like a petty thing to remove your subscription over.
Click to expand...

The people that canceled are climate zealots. They don't care what the data says.
 
I dropped my subscription to NYT years ago, at the point in time when I realized NYT is but a lapdog mouthpiece for the status quo and special interests.
 
I think it was a well written article, If people are upset by that article perhaps a little self introspection,
is called for!
 
longview said:
I think it was a well written article, If people are upset by that article perhaps a little self introspection,
is called for!
Click to expand...

It's been my experience self introspection in people is difficult when they operate from a purely emotional perspective.

I can't imagine how difficult it would be for a newspaper operation to appease a readership that changes perspectives depending on how one feels that day.

Of course, it's the NYT, and personally, their long drawn out suicide bothers me little.
 
jimbo said:
Environmentalists tend to be liberal and tend to be offended by nearly everything, especially free speech.
Click to expand...

Your blanket statement reinforces the image that Righties are uneducated, thanks for once again proving the point, carry on.
 
yankintx said:
Your blanket statement reinforces the image that Righties are uneducated, thanks for once again proving the point, carry on.
Click to expand...

He just proved your point!
 
Rexedgar said:
not to hijack the thread, but what are the 'hot button' issues in order of importance to the left-center-right.

In no specific order, my list is:

1) 2nd amendment
2) abortion
3) immigration
4) climate change
5) health care
6) taxes
7) 1st amendment
8) foreign policy
What am I leaving out?
Click to expand...

You're hijacking the thread.

It is an interesting topic. Worthy of its own thread.
 
WCH said:
One blanket statement deserves another.
Click to expand...

Happy to see even a Trumpster can recognize irony, you get a gold star,
 
Renae said:
It IS an amusing story for many reasons
Click to expand...

While there is certainly amusement to be had here, it is mostly in your reactions, not in the actual story. The story is "a few people disagree with an article".
 
TheGoverness said:
Seems like a petty thing to remove your subscription over.
Click to expand...

How is a news site putting up a provably incorrect article not a reason to remove a subscription over?
 
Nilly said:
How is a news site putting up a provably incorrect article not a reason to remove a subscription over?
Click to expand...

Well it's definitely a reason, just not a very good one in my opinion.
 
TheGoverness said:
Well it's definitely a reason, just not a very good one in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Ah, so you prefer your news sources to be provably incorrect. I see.

Even the guy that the article author cited has shot him down: https://www.facebook.com/andrew.revkin.5/posts/10156090701266040

If a news website is going to give a platform to long since debunked nonsense then it's no surprise that they will lose subscribers.

Not to mention, to give credence to people who run with the idea that 'some uncertainty' = 'no certainy' (which is, afterall, all that climate change denial really is) is socially irresponsible. (I understand that some people might not care about that).
 
TheGoverness said:
Well it's definitely a reason, just not a very good one in my opinion.
Click to expand...

It is ok though, those 3 people are probably not going to have a real impact on the papers profitability.
 
Nilly said:
Ah, so you prefer your news sources to be provably incorrect. I see.

Even the guy that the article author cited has shot him down: https://www.facebook.com/andrew.revkin.5/posts/10156090701266040

If a news website is going to give a platform to long since debunked nonsense then it's no surprise that they will lose subscribers.

Not to mention, to give credence to people who run with the idea that 'some uncertainty' = 'no certainy' (which is, afterall, all that climate change denial really is) is socially irresponsible. (I understand that some people might not care about that).
Click to expand...

Um, no. It's just one columnist. I don't think I would remove my subscription just because one columnist wrote an article that was factually incorrect.

But hey, whatever floats their boat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom