Gender Discrimination In Employment
Discriminatory practices used by the paper long restricted women in appointments to editorial positions. The newspaper’s first general female reporter was , who described her experience afterward: “In the beginning I was charged not to reveal the fact that a female had been hired”. Other reporters nicknamed her Fluff and she was subjected to considerable hazing. Because of her gender, any promotion was out of the question, according to the then-managing editor. She remained on the staff for fifteen years, interrupted by World War I.
In 1935, Anne McCormick wrote to Arthur Hays Sulzberger: “I hope you won’t expect me to revert to ‘woman’s-point-of-view’ stuff.” Later, she interviewed major political leaders and appears to have had easier access than her colleagues. Even witnesses of her actions were unable to explain how she gained the interviews she did.Clifton Daniel said, ” I’m sure Adenauer called her up and invited her to lunch. She never had to grovel for an appointment.”
Eissler Would Have Admitted I Was Right
Malcolm quotes Masson as stating that ” Eissler would have admitted . . . was right” in his belief that Freud knew Schreber’s concerns about castration had some basis in reality prior to his publication of the Schreber case study. This statement is not on any tape of Malcolm’s conversations with Masson. The following conversation, however, does appear on tape:
MASSON: I have here in my library an article by Paul Flechsig, in which he recommends castration. Now, you may wonder whether this had anything to do with . . . Schreber’s delusions. My answer is: It did not.
MALCOLM: Uh huh.
MASSON: And it leaves the reader the opportunity to think about it by providing evidence he knew to be germane to the issue, but Freud doesn’t do that. . . . I even wrote in my Schreber paper when I the one that I met with Eissler over, I said, “I cannot believe that Freud knew the works of . . . father. I simply do not believe he knew them because if he did, he wouldn’t be able theoretically to ignore this and
MASSON: Now, I know that’s not true.
MALCOLM: So what did Eissler say then?
MASSON: He agrees with me, of course.
The words ascribed to Masson that “Eissler would have admitted that I was right” were a rational interpretation of Masson’s ambiguous remarks about Eissler’s reaction to his discoveries about the Schreber case. The district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Malcolm concerning the quoted language.
B Misleadingly Edited Quotations 1 Applicable Principle
Masson contends that Malcolm took several statements he made out of context. He contends that a reasonable jury could find actual malice on Malcolm’s part solely upon the evidence he presented showing that the article was edited misleadingly.
The Supreme Court has provided guidelines to assist courts in determining when actual malice may be inferred from evidence showing misleading editing. In Time, Inc. v. Pape,401 U.S. 279, 91 S.Ct. 633, 28 L.Ed.2d 45 , the defendant magazine published an account of a report by the United States Civil Rights Commission. The Civil Rights Commission’s report detailed “the alleged facts in typical cases of police brutality,” under the preface providing that while “n no case has the Commission determined conclusively whether . . . the allegations appeared substantial enough to justify discussion.” Id. at 287, 91 S.Ct. at 638. One of the cases of brutality the report described was the “alleged” racially-motivated beating of an arrestee by a Chicago police officer named Pape. Id. at 281, 91 S.Ct. at 635.
In its article about police brutality, the magazine set forth a detailed description of the beating inflicted upon the arrestee by Officer Pape. The magazine article failed to mention, however, that the Civil Rights Commission had prefaced its description of this beating with the proviso that it was describing mere allegations of police brutality. Id. at 281-82, 91 S.Ct. at 635.
Id. at 290, 91 S.Ct. at 639.
Also Check: Where Is The Wax Museum In New York
A New York State Of Mind
The design of The New Yorker has nearly always taken the approach that if it aint broke, dont fix it, with a familiar layout and masthead. Does a face-lift jeopardise its relationship with its readers? Time to call in the Type Police
It began with Harold Ross. A high school drop-out born in Colorado and raised in Salt Lake City, he ended up in New York after the First World War, where he became the editor of a magazine for veterans. Later, he moved into Greenwich Village and hung out with intellectuals and artists such as the writer Dorothy Parker. It was in this environment that Ross had the idea of starting a magazine that would deal with big city life in a sophisticated and unsensational way. It would be truthful and honest, unconcerned by provincial ways of thinking it would tell its readers what was going on in the city, discuss books of importance and publish new writing it would also have humorous cartoons, caricatures and illustrations in effect, making it an American version of Punch. And so The New Yorker was launched in 1925.
It was only after the arrival of Tina Brown, in the 1990s, that The New Yorker started to include photographs: paper and print technology improved tremendously over the last decades of the twentieth century.
5. The ad rules. A painful loss is the removal of the little shake from the rules dividing the text from the ads. Those lines were a beautiful New Yorker detail. It is hard to imagine that they could bother anyone.
Dems Chasing Nutsy Left Activists Instead Of Voters Is A Recipe For Loss
Politicos press critic, Jack Shafer, pithily punctuates every major media donnybrook, and so it was on Monday, when he tweeted: There is something wonderfully cleansing about a full-bore New York Times vs. New Yorker fight.
The Times new media columnist, Ben Smith, had just published a 4,000-word takedown of The New Yorkers seemingly sacrosanct Ronan Farrow the whiz-kid investigative journalist whose pathbreaking work on Harvey Weinsteins sex crimes helped launch #MeToo, won him a Pulitzer in 2018 and led to the publication of the best-selling Catch and Kill last year.
There are those of us who view such a fight as the cultural, though certainly not the moral, equivalent of the Iran-Iraq War: Too bad they cant both lose.
The Times is an important paper, and The New Yorker is still a serious magazine. But they are the foremost exemplars in our time of the chokingly self-congratulatory left-liberal attitudes George Orwell once referred to in another context as the smelly little orthodoxies.
And Smith as much as Farrow is guilty of that tendency.
Indeed, the conventional opinion at both institutions is so uniform that it seems extraordinary there should be any contention between them at all. And yet there is Smiths piece, Is Ronan Farrow Too Good to Be True? a cold-eyed cross-examination of Farrows occasionally slippery reporting and writing techniques.
You May Like: How To Delete New York Times Account
Newhouse Purchasing The New Yorker
- Read in app
The New Yorker magazine, a proudly independent arbiter of good taste in fine fiction, reportage and humor for more than 60 years, agreed yesterday on a sale to Samuel I. Newhouse Jr. for $142 million.
In an announcement from The New Yorker’s offices in Manhattan, the magazine’s directors said they had voted unanimously to approve the offer of Mr. Newhouse, whose publishing empire includes 26 newspapers, the Conde Nast magazines – Vogue, House & Garden, Vanity Fair, Glamour, Gourmet, Self, and GQ – as well as Random House, the book publishing company.
In announcing the proposed sale, the New Yorker’s directors said the Newhouse interests had guaranteed the continued independence of the magazine, and said present editors would be retained. But many employees, including William Shawn, The New Yorker’s 77-year-old editor, objected strongly.
Seen as Virtually Assured
Even so, investment banking sources close to the transaction said the sale was virtually assured.
As one measure of the editorial employees’ concern, a staff member at The New Yorker said yesterday that a group of employees, including Mr. Shawn, had met with a New York lawyer to determine their rights. The lawyer, Peter Ryan of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, declined to comment.
The sale would mark the first time the publication has changed hands since its founding in 1924 by Raoul Fleischmann of Fleischmann’s yeast, whose son, Peter F. Fleischmann, is chairman of The New Yorker.
New Yorker Coronavirus Cover Shows Trump With A Mask Over His Eyes
When conveying a crisis, sometimes the simplest idea is the best.
Two artists working for New York publications were reminded of that this week when illustrating the White Houses official response to the coronavirus, as the international epidemic continued to spike while also coming to American shores.
Brian Stauffer, a Bay Area-based contributor to the New Yorker, and Matt Davies, the political cartoonist for Newsday, each seized on the image of President Trump as lacking vision in dealing with the deadly viruss potential threat. In their illustrations, Trump is wearing a surgical mask over his eyes instead of his open mouth.
When we first saw the image proposed by Brian Stauffer, Trump blinding himself to the danger of a global threat, there was a minute of hesitation: Trump on the cover yet again? Francoise Mouly, art editor of the New Yorker, says of the illustration, titled Under Control. But Stauffers image was too apt to ignore. Mouly adds that it gets across the presidents willful ignorance of facts and his eagerness to unleash a torrent of empty rants and tweets.
Stauffer says that early in the Trump presidency, he was exhausted trying to keep pace with the presidents bending of presidential norms, but at some point, my mind shifted towards visual solutions that used the presidents own actions to show the folly and failings.”
A post shared by Eric Chow on Feb 4, 2020 at 3:52am PST
You May Like: Nyc Parking Ticket Online Hearing
The First Five Houses
Drew Mena and Amena Sengals first 15 bids in Austins cutthroat home market were rejected.
What Amena and Drew would ultimately learn about Covid-era real estate was not just the necessity of raising their budget and lowering their expectations. It was also that the whole mind-set required to buy a house, the most important purchase that most Americans will ever make, had undergone a fundamental transformation possibly a long-term one, given the realities of both supply and demand. Freddie Mac estimated at the end of 2020 that the United States was 3.8 million housing units short of meeting the nations needs. Combine that with the surge of millennials into the housing market they represented more than half of all mortgage originations last year as well as the insatiable appetite of investors, who now snatch up nearly one in six homes sold in America, and the contours of a new, lightning-fast, permanently desperate housing market come clearly into view.
Austin real estate has been hot for years. Over the last decade, an average of more than 100 people have moved into the area every day. But 2020 broke the levees. In July, Tesla announced it would build an auto plant in Austin. Facebook and Apple, meanwhile, were expanding their local campuses. All were attracted by Texas lower cost of living and business-friendly tax and regulatory environment.
How does he do that?
Theres cereal? Saldaña said. I have a little milk.
There’s More Evidence The Times Flubbed A Major Trump
An in-depth exploration of the Trump Organizations possible communications with a Russian bank in The New Yorker sheds new light on just how flawed a New York Times report on the suspected collusion was when it came out days before the 2016 election.
A lengthy piece by Dexter Filkins in The New Yorkers Oct. 15 issue asks, Was There a Connection Between a Russian Bank and the Trump Campaign? Filkins spoke to many of the same players that the Times Eric Lichtblau and Steven Lee Myers did for their more conclusively titled October 2016 report, Investigating Donald Trump, F.B.I. Sees No Clear Link to Russia.
The impressions the two stories leave on readers could not be more different. The Times story prompted its own ombudsman to conclude, on Trumps inauguration day, that the paper had erred in not reporting on the unexplained but damning leads about Trumps Russia connection before the election.
The error is even more glaring two years since the storys publication, after reading the evidence Filkins presents.
You can read the complex details of Maxs work in the New Yorker piece, but the main takeaway is this: During the summer of 2016, while looking for evidence that the Russians had hacked the Republican Party as they had done with the Democrats, Max inadvertently discovered that the only server contacting a Trump Organization domain in Pennsylvania with any regularity was owned by Alfa Bank, one of the largest banks in Russia.
Don’t Miss: The New Yorker Poetry Submissions
Accusations Of Liberal Bias
In mid-2004, the newspaper’s then-public editor Daniel Okrent, wrote an opinion piece in which he said that The New York Times did have a liberal bias in news coverage of certain social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage. He stated that this bias reflected the paper’s cosmopolitanism, which arose naturally from its roots as a hometown paper of New York City, writing that the coverage of the Times‘s Arts & Leisure Culture and the Sunday Times Magazine trend to the left.
If you’re examining the paper’s coverage of these subjects from a perspective that is neither urban nor Northeastern nor culturally seen-it-all if you are among the groups The Times treats as strange objects to be examined on a laboratory slide if your value system wouldn’t wear well on a composite New York Times journalist, then a walk through this paper can make you feel you’re traveling in a strange and forbidding world.
Times public editor Arthur Brisbane wrote in 2012:
When The Times covers a national presidential campaign, I have found that the lead editors and reporters are disciplined about enforcing fairness and balance, and usually succeed in doing so. Across the paper’s many departments, though, so many share a kind of political and cultural progressivism for lack of a better term that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of The Times.
Why The New Yorkers Stars Didnt Join Its Union
The 96-year-old magazine, known for its revered writers and sophisticated audience, is being consumed by a labor dispute.
A new mood of activism has swept through the home of the mascot Eustace Tilley.Credit…Nick Little
By Ben Smith
Writers for The New Yorker have been known to refer to the editor, David Remnick, as Dad, so there was something a little illicit about their decision to gather without him back in 2018 at a Windsor Terrace apartment.
Some 20 of the writers, many of them marquee names, were getting together to decide how to react to the surprise announcement that their less heralded colleagues fact checkers, copy editors, web producers, social media editors were forming a union and demanding raises.
The writers discussed whether they should follow their colleagues into the NewsGuild, and whether the magazine treated writers fairly.
George Packer broke with the magazines tight-lipped traditions by sharing details of his own deal with Condé Nast. He told his colleagues that after years of reporting from Iraq, he had requested and received health insurance before the birth of his first child. Other writers were shocked, according to several people who were there. Under The New Yorkers structure, even some of the best-known writers are considered contractors, and their bosses had given them the impression that health insurance was not a possibility.
Neither effort has gained traction.
Also Check: Where Is The Wax Museum In New York
Has The Pandemic Transformed The Office Forever
- Save Story
Save this story for later.
- Save this story for later.
David Corns, the California managing director of R/GA, a global advertising and marketing agency, needed to decide whether to renew the lease on the companys office in downtown San Francisco. It was spring, 2020, and the lease was set to expire on August 31st. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, commercial real estate was pricier in San Francisco than it was anywhere else in the country, including New York, where R/GA has its headquarters. Since leaving the office on March 13th, the hundred-person S.F. staffthe creatives, designers, strategists, account execs, and technologists who make digital products and services for Slack, Reddit, and Airbnb, among many other brands, along with support teamshad been working from home. We have seen productivity go through the roof, Corns told me. So why did the staff require so much expensive office space? Did they need any at all?
Before the pandemic, the physical and virtual workspaces often seemed to be at odds. The digital resources that now allow many workers to do their jobs from home had made it possible to come into the office and spend all day online. Although these tools claim to enhance the physical workspace by improving communication, they can undermine office culture by reducing the face-to-face encounters that open-plan layouts purport to promote.
The Gandhi Of Wall Street
Lets see, this guy has the amount of experience and education equivalent to an engineering manager in technology and his abbreviated salary is still 5x larger. That divergence only occurred recently.
In other words, hes self-selected to be in a world where people trade their morals for money and his salary reflects that.
Strong moral streak, my ass.
Lets compare him to someone I know has a strong moral streakmy brother.
But you know what my brother wouldnt do? If he was pulling in $700k on a morally suspect livelihood with his peers clearly living large on other peoples hard-earned life savings. The same life savings which these people just flushed down the toilet as they hit those same people for a bailout that pays that $700k and billions more, he wouldnt whine about this in an editorial to the New York Times. He could care less about a standing ovation from people of questionable moral character, and hed know to keep his sense of scale.
But of course, having the good sense not to be so righteous seems to be a necessary condition for an abiding moral streak, does it not?
If you want to actually stand a chance of pushing The New Yorker off its roost, you should have the good sense in knowing when to stop defending to indefensible. Or your true streak will come home to roost, would it not?
Welcome to reality, Magazine. Its a bitch.
Don’t Miss: Nyc To Cabo San Lucas