Don't agree with Bannon's views. But he is correct that it was gutless to dis-invite. He shaped Trump's message and was instrumental in getting him elected. He should be put out there not for those that agree with him or those like me who don't. It should be for all those that are unaware.
3
The media just keeps recycling the same old same olds. What a bore the US is.
1
I have been a subscriber to The New Yorker for nearly half a century as was my father before me. This capitulation on their part disappoints me. Bannon is, indeed, a vile person who espouses views inimical to out country's values. But he still has a right to be heard. And the public needs to hear what he stands for. Driving evil underground does not eliminate it; it allows it to fester unfettered.
6
Who is Judd Apatow?
Jim Carrey? Never very funny.
Bannon is an anti-semite, but Remick needs to man up.
Cowards. Invite Bannon, then verbally destroy him.
9
Stop normalizing these people and making celebrities out of them and calling it equal reporting. Bigotry should not be part of our culture and bigots should not be given equal status from reputable news sources. Shameful that the New Yorker Festival even invited him. Those that feel as he does will not be denied in any way. People can hear all they want from Bannon and his ilk on alt right news TV and radio.
7
"We would be honored to have you"??? Really Mr Remnick???Bannon is a loathsome person with totally anti-democratic beliefs. He consults with Orban and other fascists in Europe in undermining freedom of the press and advising on authoritarian policies. He got Trump elected. A man totally unfit to be president. I may have to reconsider my subscription with New Yorker magazine if this is the real thinking there.
5
It’s not surprising that Mr. Remnick would misjudge our tolerance when it comes to Mr. Bannon. He did the same when pushing for the Iraq War.
5
The New Yorker increasingly seem to be making decisions based on sensationalism, or épater le bourgeoisie - in this case NYC leftists and liberals. I miss the New Yorker of old (the pre-Tina Brown days). It had a dignity and a seriousness to it. The seeming need to shock its readership at every turn diminishes the NYer.
8
First, this plays right into the conservatives' narrative of liberal bias. Moreover, I would have loved to listen to the interview and to the challenge of Bannon's ideas. Bannon was right. Remnick, whom a I generally admire, was gutless. Rather than "censor" ideas I don't agree with, I'd rather challenge them and argue against them. I'm tempted to cancel my subscription to The New Yorker. First, Ryan Lizza is fired without the opportunity to defend himself against a claim of "inappropriate behavior", and now this craven capitulation to a mob from the left.
6
I disagree with this decision. It gives Bannon the opportunity to play victim. It says that left-wing spaces are just as inhospitable as right-wing spaces.
It plays along lines similar to “safe spaces” in universities which I think show a complete lack of courage.
Why not let Bannon face off with David Remnick? I think it would be enlightening. I think that Bannon would show himself for what he is: a self-aggrandizing bigot with no real ideas for solving society’s problems.
What is everyone so afraid of? No wonder they call us “snowflakes”.
12
Good Job to all the celebrities and employees, as well as people in general, who boycotted democracy-destroying Bannon from the New Yorker festival stage.
Mr. Remnick showed real courage by changing his mind. Thanks to him.
All it takes to preserve/restore democracy in OUR United States of America and rid it of the hate-anger-fear monger attempts to destroy it is for Good People to listen to their better selves and take action.
There are no small actions. They all count and collectively will save OUR America.
1
@njglea
As a liberal, I do not believe that this preserves or restores democracy. On the contrary, this is what authoritarian regimes do: silencing opposing points of view. Remnick is capitulating to the intolerant left. I would have liked to hear his responses to challenging questions. Those who are offended need not attend. This is craven capitulation. The best way to preserve and restore democracy is to challenge and argue against Bannon and his followers.
8
I am all for First Amendment rights, but this was about the "get" for David Remnick. Bannon was the very willing sacrificial lamb on the alter of NYC's cultural intelligentsia. I'm glad this was squashed immediately. It was a bad idea that had nothing to do with First Amendment rights.
3
Instead of white men debating white men ad nauseum about white supremacy and racism, why can't The New Yorker reach out to a black scholar like charles w. Mills (the Racial contract-1997) https://www.thenation.com/authors/charles-w-mills/
And then perhaps the media could begin to 'normalize' a different tradition, i.e., one where white male hegemony no longer dominates and essentialy frames every discussion concerning 'white male hegemony'. So please, please reconsider your decision, TNY, but find someone 'Other' than yet another white guy to debate Bannon.
7
I don't have a lot of respect for the folks that threatened to cancel because of this. Shows weakness and self-importance on their part. Let him come, let him be interviewed, let him try to defend his positions.
Even worse is a news outlet 1) catering to the whims of these folks and 2) not presenting as many varied views as possible.
Shame on all those that threatened to pull out, shame most of all for a news outlet caving because of this.
8
Judd Apatow? Jim Carrey? My how The New Yorker has fallen.
11
Yet again we see the tolerance and openmindedness of the left.
They're more like the Spanish Inquision defending their orthodoxy against all dissent.
5
@James one only needs to read you once to be set for life.
So... they fight what they perceive as hate with hate. Because we must stop hate. Got it.
6
There is a big difference between free speech and free screech. You do not give a platform to people who have already stated their failed fascist ideology and are just looking for legitimization of their noxious views. They are not there to debate...they are there to agitate. You don't invite a "flat earther" to a science debate on teutonic plates....
10
I yield to no one in my loathing of this man. However, Remnick would have done a great job destroying him on stage, and, despite the appearance of giving a platform to this cretin, the spectacle would have been educating. The New Yorker’s error was to neglect to tell the other speakers that he would be part of it. Surprise, followed by revulsion, probably explains the ferocity of their reaction.
3
Oh, come on! This is an opportunity to ask Bannon probing questions it is not an endorsement.
8
Obviously there is value in having diverse point of view represented. But would you book Alex Jones? I consider Bannon to be of the same ilk as Jones, but more calculating, and more dangerous.
5
This is becoming tiresome.
3
Shunning is a punishment dating back to Colonial times, and the withdrawal of Apatow et al. from the New Yorker Festival has many precedents in American history.
Nevertheless, an opportunity for articulate, intelligent men and women to confront Steve Bannon could expose Bannon's quasi-fascist positions and possibly shoot him down once and for all. Not a sure bet, but worth a try.
2
Is it not interesting that as the readership of the New Yorker declines, its liberal bias increases? Or is it the other way around?
6
That's hilarious! All these virtue signaling libs who are so full of hate that they can't share the stage with someone who they hate. Gotta love the liberal logic.
7
Shining a light on ideology is journalism's job. I'm disappointed in the people who pushed Remnick to make this decision, but it shows how we're all tribalists now, not a free society where problematic ideas and ideologies can be judged through open discourse. Whether we're the tribe on the left or the tribe on the right, our humanity is being eroded. Eliminating Bannon from this forum is just as ideological as the claim that he's about white supremacy. Are we able to discern nuances anymore, or is everything based on irrational gut reactions that disallow reasonable analysis of facts?
4
I am disappointed in the New Yorker. I expected better from Remnick. Bannon is a person whose views I oppose vehemently but to allow other invitees to dictate others who are invited, is a very bad precedent. Bannon and his ilk need to be given all the rope the rest of us can provide--let them speak speak speak----and show themselves for what they are. This kind of nonsense makes martyrs of them and creates more followers of their warped philosophies.
28
@Mary Melcher
It doesn't make them martyrs except for people who already believe as they do.
@Mary MelcherI agree and freedom of speech needs to be upheld
1
This is what's wrong with the Left right now (among other things) and I count myself among that group. Inviting Bannon normalizes hate? Hate has already been normalized among those susceptible to it. Bannon is an enemy of the people. Every chance you have to interview him, to analyze his words and thoughts should be jumped on. You don't beat an enemy by ignoring them, you beat them by understanding them and using that understanding to defeat them. Saying you "understand what he's about" isn't enough, you need to delve deep into the mechanics of how they thing and how they make their goals manifest. Every defense/intelligence agency understands this. The right understands this (though less and less since Trump). The left needs to understand this as well.
4
If Columbia University could host the rabid anti-Semite, Holocaust denying, homophobic terrorist that was the Iranian president and if Harvard could host George Wallace, Remnick and the NYer could host Bannon.
Remnick seemed willing to do what the Columbia and Harvard administrations did: give Bannon a chance to speak and then challenge him. Make him face the music - confront a credible case in opposition.
These encounters don't "normalize" anything. Suppressing them, canceling them, on the other hand, only shows weakness before the people and ideas being opposed. It shows no conviction behind the objection.
Remnick buckled and Bannon won.
5
I loathe Bannon and his ilk, but Stevie boy won this one. Now the right wing crank machine can declare they have positive proof that liberals are spineless, safe-space seeking hollywood air kissers. What this country needs now is dialog and like it or not Bannon's ideas have weight with a large portion of the population (not to mention President Bone Spurs). Remnick has embarrassed himself and his publication in a situation where he could have gone toe-to-toe with someone who needs to be taken down...but instead he opted to protect the attendance of a group of B list celebrities whose ideas are of no interest to anyone of serious mind. Too bad David...I love your work...but you really blew it.
5
@Lure D. Lou The whole Trump cult is a victimhood complex.
1
Good decision - better to conduct and interview and then publish - the conversation is important, but no need to provide a bully pulpit.
It’s not as if Steve Bannon and his views are an unknown entity. Being interviewed at the New Yorker festival would only allow him to shine in the spotlight and pretend to be like the other participants, which he most assuredly is not. He has a right to speak his mind but let him create his own venue to do so.
5
This is so disappointing. If Bannon is "no William F. Buckley", this was a golden opportunity to reveal to expose the quagmire that is "conservative thought".
I very much wanted to see if David Remnick was up to the task of interviewing Steve Bannon - free of ad hominem attacks - and forcing Bannon to capitulate. I would have given anything to see Bannon recognize and/or admit his intellectual shortcomings, whether he's a genuine racist or cynical huckster.
Remnick's panel would have been much better if he invited Charles C. Cooke, Rich Lowry, and Ben Shapiro and moderated & debated those guys. The internecine debating would have been lively.
Alas, my fellow readers, registered Democrats, and liberals succumbed to grandstanding and outrage and hysteria.
I never thought I'd utter this phrase, but Steve Bannon was right. Remnick is gutless. Right when it mattered the most :(
31
@SM Bannon would never recognise his intellectual shortcomings, so don’t hold your breath. He does not listen. He would not be persuaded by any sound argument Remnick could make. Bannon would not capitulate because he does not argue in good faith to begin with. He was just eager for yet another podium to spew his baseless rhetoric. The mistake you and Remnick make is to think you can reason with a man like Bannon. It is pointless to try to reason with a man who has no respect for reason or truth.
4
@SM
No. He should never have been invited in the first place. Logical arguments mean nothing to men like Bannon and his followers. They can twist any argument to look as if they are being attacked.
2
If Mr. Brannon were to speak at The New Yorker Festival I would cancel my subscription to the magazine. He is as full of hate and as much a destructive person as the man in the Oval Office.
3
Just take a look at the cost for tickets to this event. Then you may have an answer to the question frequently asked here: "Why would Bannon do such a thing?" He was thinking ticket sales all the way, money/profit overrode any sense of decency by providing normalization for a sickening, rabid racist's ranting. He had no problem in allowing this venom to be seen as equal to that of his many opponents; in the case of attack-mode hatemongers, it is not being able to get their voice and thoughts "out there"...it is simply to be on the same stage as rational and intelligent individuals, the visual impression that they too are of value, rather than the dregs of society which even they know they are. And their nonthinking, rabid followers don't need to hear his speeches and arguments; they are already in the sewer with him, so all that is important to them, again, is to see him supposedly in the same "league" as normal people. And Bannon thought he could just sit back and count the money...always, always follow the money. Bannon is as bad as anyone in his greed, and lack of principles.
@Aaron - Steve Bannon is a nine-figure millionaire. I seriously doubt he's gonna miss many meals or much sleep over being excluded from this event.
1
Terrible sign of the times. Bannon, distasteful as he is, is one of the few true free-thinkers around. His brand of intellect is way over the head of Trump and most of his people. But Remnick and The New Yorker crowd vs Bannon would have made a very interesting skirmish.
It's shameful that so many of my fellow liberals have abandoned the concept of intellectual curiosity in favor of silly academic-isms like "normalizing hatred".
Also, it doesn't seem like the best idea to invite the label "close-minded" or "elitist" or "childish" just a few weeks before an election.
5
Let him speak. There is an old adage, know your enemy. If these "celbrities" can't handle it, find some who can. I'm truly disappointed in the New Yorker management.
6
Snowflakes melt after all - even under the dim wattage of a lightweight like Bannon. The inability of the left to even PERMIT a diversity of voices is laughable. What are they so afraid of?
5
Since when is “conservative speech” defined as openly (or surreptitiously) racist? This is the ideological stance that petrifies me. Racists are claiming conservatism as basis for this disgusting rhetoric. It isn’t the same! Liberals need conversation with conservatives, and vice versa. No one needs conversation with racists. They are not entitled to any public amplification or ingestion.
2
Why not let the anger carbunkle speak? Let's hear the "other side" of the "is cancer good for you?" debate. As the US democratic experiment sinks below the waves, Bannon is a perfect tour guide.
Regarding Mr. Remnick's invitation to Mr. Bannon, it was a mistake. This withdrawal of Bannon's invitation can hardly be seen as a "freedom of speech" issue since hate speech, at least so far, is still seen as outside Constitutional protections . For Remnick to use "honor" in reference to someone who wants to normalize white supremacy is particularly painful. If the far right (and what remains of the aware left) want to be "fair and balanced" on this issue, they should take issue that even non-hate-speech suppression is alive and well in American corporate media. How many times in the past decade have you seen Lindsay Graham comment on an issue of national import on the evening news versus, say, Noam Chomsky?
Well respected media outlets should stop falling into the trap of being guilt tripped by provocative poseurs who complain about suppression of their free speech rights. It’s not their duty to give a platform to every single person who dabbles in the politics of hatred and white supremacy: as Bannon has clearly shown that he does. If conservatives consider people like Bannon and Milo to be their elite thinkers then it says more about where modern conservative movement has ended up rather than a media bias towards it.
66
Steve Bannon is not exactly a minor player with extreme views. He had a huge influence in putting Trump in the White House.
2
@Citizen Correct. Bannon is a major player with extreme views.
What a bunch of wimps! Anyone worth his salt would welcome the chance to confront Steve Bannon. Where is Christopher Hitchens now that we need him?
I like to read the NY Times, but I don't want to live in an echo chamber like so many NY Times Opinion writers and Far Left fools who don't have the confidence to test their opinions against criticism. Closing of the American Mind, it's been rightly called.
8
I can't stand Bannon. But what's more appalling and troubling than Bannon, is the blind rage and hostility blasted out by vacuous, holier than thou, transient, pseudo intellectuals, who's tolerance of Constitutional free speech extends only as far as "so long as it's consistent with my political views and ideology", not in my self-aggrandizing, systemically phony, social media, vomitus backyards.
It is those who surreptitiously work to design "correct speech" in their pathetic, self-righteous collective images who pose far more danger to the concept of protected free speech than intellectual feather pillow, racist, xenophobe, amoral creeps, such as autocrat in chief D. Trump. This insidious collective of shameless, sociopolitical extorters are interested in one thing and one thing only; Fashioning protections for those who agree with their positions while aggressively suppressing thoughts and expressions inconsistent with their own. “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” George Washington.
7
If there were a chance that interviewing this hate monger in a high profile setting (even if it was a tough challenging interview) would change some of his supporters minds then it might have been a good idea but he is part of the cult and cult members rarely change their minds. Those of us with the capacity to form coherent thoughts already know what this disgusting human being is about. Good decision to cancel.
3
This is a lost opportunity.
I’m sorry that these *celebrities and journalists do not have the intellectual stamina and moral vision to engage in and sustain a conversation with someone who wields so much power.
How do we expect to change anyone’s mind if we don’t engage with them respectfully? Score one for Bannon as the New Yorker lowers its bar.
2
When we follow the moral code of democracy, the irrational and provocateurs of white supremacy are unworthy. I would hope the Constitution could do the same for the rule of law. Unfortunately the confirmation hearing process has violated our trust in the rule of law. I congratulate the New Yorker for supporting its guests and its readers. Steve Bannon is not a voice of change. He is far more insidious than Joe McCarthy. He desires anarchy.
1
I regret the retracted invitation. Mr. Bannon should be given every opportunity to demonstrate his vileness. How better to open the eyes of Americans?
The idea of Bannon headlining an entire New Yorker event program was a bit "naive", and the ensuing uproar was quite predictable. A conversation with David Remnick instead is not a good alternative, either. However, unlike many other commenters here, I do believe that an actual podium discussion between Steve Bannon and an equally vocal progressive populist would be of interest. Bannon got away with a lot of his statements because his self-proclaimed populist man of the people credentials were never really challenged in an actual open debate on even footing.
2
Shameful. It's so much more comfortable to be in your own bubble. Let's continue to talk past each other to make sure we are always right..
4
As editor of Breitbart News, Bannon is known to have supported alt-right causes, including white supremacy and racism. I am all for freedom of speech, but not for freedom of hate speech.
It seems that including Bannon in a cultural arts festival is not in keeping with the primary mission of the event.
5
Loony lib Dems continue to try and shut down free speech. Only the views of the left are to be heard in their fascist world. Yeah, let's talk about the leftist myth and lie of tolerance and diversity.
3
Steve Bannon is super busy flitting around Europe having films made about his mob mentality and conspiracy quilt ideas.
Whatever happened to his stay-at-home nationalism, the old Toil & Soil? Or is that all just for everyone else while he wears a beret and chats with the hoi polloi??
1
Steve Bannon has nothing to say worth hearing - he's self-promoting hate-monger - I applaud the New Yorker for uninviting him.
3
Usually it takes a Tina Brown to make a boneheaded mistake like elevating the status of Stephen K. "Race" Bannon merely for the sake of that supposedly invaluable "buzz."
Nice knowin' ya, Mr. Remnick.
2
More fuel for the right-wing fire. The so-called #Resistance is a centrist mob that will guarantee Trump's reelection.
2
The article considerably softens John Mulaney’s tweet by lopping off the end of it. If the NY Times is going to insist on maintaining its priggishness about dirty words, it’s going to continue depicting a curiously narrow and incomplete version of the world.
3
It is painful for me to criticize David Remnick, a great writer and editor. But it was a mistake in the first place to invite Steve Bannon, a seedy fascist opportunist, to this event, potentially mainstreaming his poisonous ideas and conferring on him the legitimacy of The New Yorker. Everyone in this fiasco has disgraced themselves: the Hollywood lightweights obviously invited to sell tickets who pulled out, and the magazine staffers who protested Bannon's inclusion, and who both have demonstrated they don't respect the free marketplace of ideas. They have given Bannon the chance to lambaste with justification the East Coast "liberal media establishment" as suppressors of free speech. Bannon, to my disgust, turns out to be the only person associated with this event who comes out of this mess with a plus. The whole thing just makes me very, very sad.
21
@Gene Ritchings I do not see it as a chance to "legitimize" Bannon's views. I do see it as an opportunity to put the New Yorker's money where its mouth usually is. I oppose everything for which Bannon stands but I also believe that open debate with him and others like him is an opportunity and not something to hide from....all this does is create more followers for him.
3
@Gene Ritchings
The free marketplace of ideas? Who coined this phrase? With freedom of speech comes responsibility. These actors and magazine staffers have a right to voice and stand behind their rights to their feelings as well. How does Bannon get a plus? Do we give Nazis and the Ku Klux Clan a plus if someone features and invites them to an event and those featured or involved do not want to be part of such an event?
2
Of course, another opportunity to censor the view of the opposition by the leftists. "White nationalists" is a figment of the imagination of this narrow minded, immature, non-intellectual, elitist mob.
3
You speak of "the leftists" as if they were a hierarchical organization with bylaws and a long tradition of authoritarianism.
That's what we call projecting, isn't it?
2
I'm curious if those who are criticizing David Remnick for rescinding Bannon's invitation from the festival are aware of all of the articles they written about him. Bannon and his world view have hardly been ignored by the New Yorker. Why should The New Yorker have risked the entire festival being a failure over him?
https://www.newyorker.com/tag/steve-bannon
2
We already know Bannon's ideas, and that they are unsupported and incoherent. Remnick would have accomplished nothing other than create a cringe-inducing spectacle. Now he has compounded his mistake by canceling, which is literally the only way Bannon could have come out of this looking good.
3
Another temper tantrum from the left. Yawn.
5
Look through the comments: those that rely on personal attack can be discarded. Of those that thoughtfully present views - too many fall into the false equivalence between tribal allegiance (branding) and open policy debate. There is no 'bullying' in denying a cult leader a platform. There is every reason to allow Bannon to present an economic and social basis for concrete policy. Oh wait... chirp, chirp...
I hope the many excellent journalists, writers and cartoonists who make The New Yorker the outstanding publication that it is don't suffer because of this boneheaded decision by what I hope is the soon to be replaced Mr. Remnick.
There actually is good and bad in life. That which promotes life for all is good. That which denies life to any is bad. The price of liberty is vigilance and it is great to see some vigilance being practiced by; Mulaney, Apatow, Antonoff, Carrey, and members of the New Yorker staff! Hear. hear!
1
Remnick made a major misstep by scheduling Bannon, a provocateur and propagandist for the far right. If Remnick wants to do the tired and worn out "two sides" trick why not invite David Duke? How is Bannon different? They hold many of the same views.
20
The author links this to conservative concerns about the suppression of conservative views. However, is this the suppression of Mr. Bannon's free speech or an example of others being so disgusted by what he represents that they refuse to engage with him? This dis-invitation will, no doubt, be a rallying cry for the tikki-torch bearing crowd. Still, hate speech is not "free." It is a form of violence and control. Just ask any oppressive regime that every existed anywhere in the world. Bannon may have a right to speak, but he does not have the right to force others to listen or to engage. Bravo to those who said no thanks!
6
The only way to rebuke hate is call it out. The New Yorker caved and gave the opposition more ammunition. Festival goers could have gone and put Bannon’s feet to the fire in Q&A. Rebutting every point he makes would have been more effective in disrupting his spew than not letting him speak at all.
2
I believe it's important to keep talking---even with Steve Bannon. A good interviewer like Remnick can engage with this horrible person and expose him for who and what he is. Let Bannon take questions from a civilized audience. Let him sweat under the hot lights.
Why not do an interview at Town Hall, charge a nominal fee and let the discussion begin? It goes against our democracy, to go to violence at a place like Berkeley, the home of Mario Savio and free speech.... by preventing the Anne Coulters of the world from having their ugly say. Better that tens of thousands of people gather and peacefully protest outside. That kind of 'body count' will outshout the haters. I really believe we can't silence them. Let's see and hear them for who and what they are. This too shall pass and we will be a better society for it.
12
Remnick thought this would be educational?
The problem with giving a clever sociopath like Bannon a platform is that he would use it to normalize his noxious views and actions. Remnick thought he could confront him?
In a recent interview with Ari Melber on MSNBC, Bannon seemed "oh so reasonable." It's because he, like his puppet Trump, has no conscience and can lie without a single "tell."
Bannon must be judged by his history and behavior, both of which reveal a reprehensible racist. Giving him a platform is handing him a bottle of media perfume which he would use to cover the stench and normalize the abnormal.
No thanks.
11
Bannon should not get any kind of imprimatur of legitimacy from the New Yorker magazine. If they do a well written hard nosed article about him, based in part on an interview, fine, but that is about it. In my view, Bannon is not a person deserving of an interview in a setting that will give him notoriety. Bannon seems to love being in the limelight but he does not deserve it.
4
Half of the reason why the warped ideology of Bannon, Trump and the like have progressed so far is the wrongful airtime and column inches they have been given by the mainstream media in some misguided attempt to be 'balanced'.
I cannot express how frustrating it is to see the liberal media give more of less equal billing to these ideologues, whilst nothing of the sort is reciprocated from Murdoch's propaganda spigot.
4
I am guessing THE NEW YORKER is paying speakers for the event and remain curious whether or not Steve Bannon will be paid, as per any agreement.
1
For some reason, the New Yorker has seen fit to have Bannon as a source for multiple stories (unrelated to politics, I might add) over the past year. Since when was this hateful man considered a reliable source on anything but hate? Maybe David Remnick will finally realize that Bannon should be left to spread his poison elsewhere.
7
"Mr. Bannon said in a statement to The New York Times. “In what I would call a defining moment,…"
In case you missed it, Mr. Bannon, "a defining moment" already happened.
2
Not wishing to appear in the same venue as someone you despise is the right of anyone. Appearance could indicate tacit approval of the person or their views. Trump doesn’t tolerate different views at his rallies. Goose/Gander...
7
I am a longtime New Yorker subscriber and definitely disappointed in this anti-free speech decision. Bannon is a more interesting speaker than Jim Carrey or any of the other intellectual lightweights who led to his jettison. Jim Carrey is an anti-vaccine creepy old man who dates twenty year olds. Judd Apatow makes movies about farts, as far as I know. Cowardly decision Remnick.
4
I feel it's essential to know thy adversary.
All too often we seek only to entertain those who affirm our positions and prejudices.
The liberal addicted to MSNBC (me) and the conservative addicted to Fox will only become further alienated from one another unless they change channels now and then to watch - aghast - at the "oppo content."
I'd rather hear Bannon in a heated debate with Remnick than listen to Jim Carey.
Remnick cow-towed to political correctness so as not to lose revenue or face. In doing so I imagine he's lost some self respect.
4
The pressure of threatened speaker cancellations can also be seen as a form of social bullying. Here it was effective, and not illegal certainly, but it can have its risks, and I hope for the sake of The New Yorker and Mr. Bannon that each protected itself in advance. I hope Bannon collects whatever fee he was promised for appearing and that The New Yorker had the foresight to shift those costs in its contracts to other speakers who threatened to cancel - even if it doesn't have the guts to exercise the right. Bullying is unlikeable regardless of which side is doing it.
3
For those who will want to make this about free speech, I Laugh Out Loud.
Yes. Certainly. When Trump is out of the White House, he will be a headliner speaker at all kinds of anti corruption conferences around the world and we will all be enraptured by what he will have to say. Sigh.
Give us a break. I say bring back Ostracism.
I am not interested in what this man and his gang have to say about anything. Ever. That is why we have ostracism. We need to start practicing it. Ostracism is likely the only tool Liberals has got left at this stage of the game.
7
I would think losing Apatow and Carey and adding Bannon would spark interest. Now, there is no reason to go.
2
People don't want to attend a literate festival to hear conservative speakers, whom they've heard say the same nonsensical ideological garbage many times over before. If people want to hear conservative drivel they can listen to Fox news all day long. Exactly what was Mr. Remnick hoping for by engaging Bannon in a " serious and even combative conversation"? At this juncture in American politics, no one on either side of the political divide will be persuaded to change their opinions about how best to solve the country's ills.
Better at this point to engage in discussions among like minded people which might refine currently available opinions and observations into a working set of liberal principles.
Mr. Bannon need not go away angry, just go away.
5
@KB Who do you mean by "people"?
I don't want, nor do I need an echo chamber.
As a member of a free society with a multitude of opinions, I prefer the opportunity to hear from those with whom I disagree.
5
@Mark Then by all means sign up for Breitbart.
2
I admire David Remnick for offering Mr. Bannon the invitation, but I admire Stephen Bannon even more for accepting!
1
Steve Bannon or no Steve Bannon, I think The New Yorker Festival this year is a little weak. Jim Carrey, really? And no great loss if Judd Apatow pulled out. I usually go through the panel and pick the ones I'd like to hear speak. This year I pretty much just turned the page because it was too heavy with celebrities....oh, and one flame-thrower.
4
You would think that those that don't like Bannon would want to have his views aired, and then debunked. That said, those threatening to bow out likely wouldn't have the ability to throw up much of an argument. The court jester class is good at throwing tantrums, but don't dare ask a question that requires them to actually form a thought of their own....
1
@Old Guy We've heard Bannon's baloney and reject it, and him with it.
3
That's rich. The ultra Right espouse policies further marginalize the already marginalized, rip children from their mothers, to be imprisoned in most cruel ways, foment hate and division among the populous by criminalizing those who seek asylum while emboldening their violent minority, resurrecting prejudices from decades past, effectively deconstruct our democratic processes ... the list goes on but I won't ... and they are crying 'Foul' when those of the many with decency and enlightened thought stand up and say "No More!"
11
Steve Bannon reminds me of Pal Pot - very smart and evil. The history of mankind had many figures like this and they inflicted tremendous harm to mankind. The American society is facing the dilemma - how to deal with this type of personality - ignore them or confront them. My choice will be confront them - we can not hide these figures under the carpet. We have to face the reality of human civilization - occasionally poison will come out of churning and we have to drink it and survive. We need that type of forbearance to withstand the Intelectual arguments Bannon and demolish him through our rationality, humanity and spiritual strength. I have seen the Farid Zakaria interview and I was not impressed. Farid definitely have more stronger intelectual rigor and training, but his arguments never tried to demolish his views on economics and immigration and Western civilizations future. If we do not do a rigorous confrontation, Trump will not be the only puppet he will impose on us, we may get greater evils in future.
1
What has Steve Bannon ever said that was so hateful and beyond the pale of decency that he should be denied the opportunity to participate in the marketplace of ideas?
3
@Jon Bannon doesn't engage in "ideas", he peddles falsehoods.
3
@Jon
Here's a suggestion. Google him.
You'll get your answer.
4
@N. Smith Ok so nothing then, you just don't like him because he worked for Trump. As I thought.
Why give a forum to a person who engages in hate speech?
Kudos to those who were invited and spoke up against Bannon.
8
Perhaps rather than boycotting the event, Mr. Carry and Antonoff could have used their time to explain just why Mr. Bannon is so wrong on so many issues. Oh wait that would have required them not talking about themselves.
1
David Remnick should invite New American Journal editor Glynn Wilson since it was Wilson who broke the story on Roy Moore being banned from the Gadsden Mall cited in the New Yorker. Wilson's reporting was critical in beating Bannon and Roy Moore and helping Doug Jones win that election. Ask the Senator.
4
Of course Bannon was invited to stir up controversy and attract attention. So either he appears and causes a stir, or they cancel his appearance which also causes a stir. Either way, mission accomplished for the New Yorker.
Denied a forum here, Bannon gets another chance to claim victimhood.
Everybody wins!
6
Free speech requires that Bannon and other Alt-Right hate mongers have a Constitutional right to think and say what they want.
There is nothing that requires that they be given a platform to spew their hate. The New Yorker ended up doing the right thing. Bannon and his ilk should not be mainstream and allowed to use our press freedoms to broadcast hate speech.
10
@wfisher1 Freedom of speech only protects us from government retribution, not that private organizations must allow anyone to say anything they want.
2
David Remnick has conveniently played into Steve Bannon's hands by cancelling the event. Bannon can now (and indefinitely) claim to be the victim of left-wing censorship of free speech, a martyr to "political correctness" run amok. This, of course, will delight the Trump minions, who always stand ready to be manipulated into howls of outrage at how "the elites" conspire to suppress what they see to be the truth.
Bannon must be delighted, especially since he's now been given a chance to call Remnick a coward. Why Remnick couldn't have foreseen this whole mess coming is very strange indeed.
7
Once again, metaphysically challenged so-called "progressives" show conclusively that they believe in diversity ... in everything but thought.
And to make the irony even more delicious, they do so by hatefully hating those who purport to hate.
The iron rule of the Alt-Left seems to be this: So long as I can impute hatefulness to those who disagree with me, then anything goes; I am free to hate, and even to resort to violence, all in the name of social justice.
It was indeed well said that Modernism was an assault upon God, and and that post-Modernism is an assault upon reason.
2
Free speech.
Hate speech.
There's the rub.
Is it better to hear it and counter it. Or let it be said that
liberals won't stomach a different pov - albeit from someone I personally regard as dangerous to democracy.
5
@pealass
Please take the word "speech" out of the equation. No-one denies bannon the First Amendment. He has plenty of outlets and followers. Unfortunately. It's his dangerous ideology that should not be given ANY platform and therefore NOT normalized. trump already has done it.
2
Unless I misread a major point, no one was howling to have Bannon removed - they were just saying, "If he's in, I'm not."
"Free Speech" at its best.
9
David Remnick probably saved me the trouble of cancelling my New Yorker subscription, but I'm still wondering how such a lapse in judgment could have occurred to someone (Remnick) whose moral compass had seemed so clearly defined. That is scary.
4
The rot is spreading. In an astonishing lapse of judgement Mr. Remnick has confused spectacle and debate. They are not the same thing. The coliseum is not a substitute for the senate, and mistaking the first for the second is how American politics has ended up where it is today. So, no. There is nothing useful to be achieved by providing an elevated platform for hateful speech thinly disguised as principle.
10
I see nothing wrong with refusing to provide a free platform for people like Steve Bannon or Ann Coulter to spread their hateful messages. Conservatives, alt-righters, and white nationalists can create their own forums—we should not normalize their views by allowing them to be part of rational discussions.
9
I'm a huge fan of New Yorker and no fan of Steve Bannon but his bad ideas need to be tested and disproved in the public square. The man's world view is poison. If he's only interviewed by people who agree with him, he'll never be challenged. As Remnick said, a live interview does not allow for off-the-record comments. Bannon would have had to defend his views. As a Democrat, I'm sorry to see the far left is still going down this sad path. Kudos to New Yorker for trying but in the end, I understand it if the magazine cannot afford to lose money defending the right to have him there.
8
It is the small and large gestures that are important and as soon as I read the headlines to this article it rang true. Hate and the people out there perpetuating hate need to be stifled on the ground level. We cannot continue to listen to and give them a chance to be heard. Make space and give the stage to awesome speakers who want to help people and save the planet.
13
This incident tells you the New Yorker is in real trouble, because it means they finally 'believe their own baloney'.
I wish the Bannon interview would have been allowed to happen.
I don't believe Bannon represents how 20-30 percent of the country thinks. Rather, Bannon is way out on the lunatic fringe, from which he adopts policies that may resonate with 20-30 percent of the US public, but for completely different reasons than most people suppose.
Exposure to the Bannon toxin is the best hope of developing a resistance to this particular brand of poison.
The cancellation of celebrity speakers is no great loss, as it is mind boggling that anyone thinks celebrities have anything significant to offer beyond the reflected luminance of their fame.
Like Oprah's many bizarre beliefs, celebrity 'causes' and crusades are often misguided, poorly conceived, and almost always performed with shallow forethought.
Let celebrities be celebrities. But lets not confuse them with dedicated intellectuals with informed opinions.
7
Good for David Remnick, at least he tried to create a dialogue with both sides or a clash.
2
Republicans will follow up with that liberals are censoring Free speech. Its become a tactic amongst the many cheap desperate ones they use to get elected. Their viewpoints are known well enough by now to people who've been paying attention for decades. It would just be indulging for anyone to sit thru their policies that take a long way around to rationalize what they've advocated for and against this long. Stonewalling campaign finance reform because it serves their Organizing Principle of addressing the little peoples' interests as a by product of taking care of corporate interests that may or may not trickle down, the environment is another thing we don't have to hear about to know where they stand on it, then there's consumer interests. The fruit they've sowed relative to it is just putrid in favor of preying on average working people as is their stance on Health Care and supporting another "Industrial Complex" at the expense of …US. Nope we're fed up and don't have to take it any more from the syndicate of shill operatives for wealthy interests.
Reminds me of hound dogs barking at the moon. Wish Elvis was still around....
1
Foolish move to disinvite bannon. Moving to far left, not allowing opposing views to be heard, is a bad move. I don't want to lose again.
2
Who even wants to hear what these people will say? Let them drop and keep Bannon. I'm not even Republican but would love to hear his pov. I'm tired of these elites being so offended.
3
I'd love to see and hear Bannon talk his head off -- while he's wearing an orange jumpsuit, in a court of law, facing conspiracy and treason charges.
7
Bannon was the right interview but the wrong forum.
That was David Remnicks mistake.
8
With deep gratitude that the choice was made not to give the hateful and destructive rhetoric of Mr. Bannon stage time.
There are many wise voices representing diversity who are committed to non harmful action while addressing our current
issues as a country.
Please let us hear from those.
Thank you
8
When a nation, group or individual is in conflict with another... is it advantageous to sit down in an effort to understand the other point of view and nurture some form of dialogue in an effort to build bridges on the issues?... -or- Is it better to adopt a position of tribalism where one side bans/ex-communicates the other from the "public square" in an effort to maintain its own xenophobic tendencies and block other points of view in an hierarchical display of dominance?...
How did the World ever get out of the 20th Century intact only to fall back into the same philosophical dichotomies that once again concentrate on partisan divides?...
1
So David Duke and the KKK are entitled to a platform to engage in “debate”?
1
Since it’s so popular to deal in false equivalency these days can anyone tell me how often it is that conservative groups actively invite extreme liberals as featured speakers let alone headliners to their events?
23
@DMurphy Why use conservative groups as a standard?
Remnick makes the same error too many liberals are making- they assume that their opponent only differs on viewpoint. The fact is Bannon has no love of spirited debate and fair political discourse- none of the alt.right people do. They champion mediocrity and anti-intellectualism and their goal in appearing on stage is not to have an exchange of ideas but to have public venue to be seen in the headlines and the history books as a legitimate public figure attending a high profile event. It's the notoriety for his name and his associations that he wants. He knows his ideas cannot stand up to scrutiny, but he would get what he came for nonetheless. Remnick was correct in not letting his event be used like this- even if he should have seen it from the beginning.
18
@Geraldine He "knows his ideas cannot stand up to scrutiny"? Well they deprived him the opportunity to engage in a critical discussion of his ideas. I think it's probably more accurate to say people are afraid that his ideas WILL stand up to scrutiny, hence the shutdown.
This isn't a free speech issue. The New Yorker made him a headliner for an event to sell tickets. If Remnick wanted to interview him for the magazine, it would be to expose his vacuous and hateful views, not to make money!
7
Oh c'mon.
To my fellow liberals - please stop suppressing free speech. If there's a speaker with a repugnant message, be prepared to offer a better counterargument. Don't just run away from a fight.
And seriously, Jim Carrey's anti-vaccine messages are far more harmful than the drivel that Bannon puts out.
17
@Mark
Bannon hasn't lost his right to free speech, he can say whatever he wants. Why give him legitimacy by putting him on stage with people who are acknowledged as the intelligencia?
6
@SOSLP I agree he hasn't been denied his 1st amendment right.
But he was denied an opportunity to speak.
In other words, liberals are just as guilty as conservatives as requiring an echo chamber.
And take a look at the list of speakers. Have we sunk so low to consider them "the intelligencia"?
5
@Mark: This isn't a First Amendment issue. The First Amendment pertains only to attempts to suppress speech by government ("Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ... " The New Yorker is not a government entity. Perhaps you mean Bannon's free speech rights haven't been denied.
2
I am much more interested in gaining knowledge about the Steve Bannons of the world whose ideas have serious and timely consequences for all of us than any contributions by cultural lightweights like Jim Carrey, Judd Apatow, Patton Oswalt, Jack Antonoff, and John Mulaney.
49
All you need to know is that he shows basic hate. Okay, school’s out.
10
@w. evans davis: So peruse Breitbart and other platforms that give Bannon ample time and space. There are plenty.
9
@w. evans davis - He was interviewed on 60 Minutes last year. That was already enough information for me.
5
The strange decision to give bannon a platform reminds me of good intentions in the beginning of trump's presidency - folks at MSNBC saying give him a chance, let's see how he acclimates to the role. Showing every tweet and loud-mouth vacuous comment he made. Having his surrogates on as if they were coherent or had a perspective to offer. It wasn't long before folks realized they were giving air time to people who speak nonsense and have no idea what it means to say all men are created equal. There are better ways to inform and better uses for high profile platforms.
14
Steve Bannon probably represents the viewpoints of 20% to 30% of the American population. It would be unwise to not engage with him in political discourse.
You counter bad speech with good speech, not with silencing and shunning. If Bannon's views are as hateful as most commenters here claim then he should be trivial to counter.
In 2018, because of technology, you can't silence speech you don't like, only ignore it and then be taken by surprise when someone like Trump wins the White House.
5
How is it again and again we fail to see or point out that people like Bannon, Gorka, Miller and of course Trump aren't arguing in good faith?
They're not seeking truth, they're distorting it to suit their agenda: a world that's better for them, not for everyone else. Bannon uses pseudo-science and ideology, and Trump uses lies, cons and bluster; but both are fundamentally operating in bad faith, and we need to get better and blunter about pointing this out.
The New Yorker was stupid and opportunist in booking Bannon as a headliner; they were stupider for cancelling. Amazing how stupid intelligent people can be at times.
12
What a complete unforced error. Mr. Remnick will now and forever have proven himself a coward and in the process provided a major lift to those who work to portray the mainstream press as the enemy of the people. He made a decision that interviewing Bannon, on stage, was the right way to air and challenge his views with interrogation and dialogue, for all to see and hear. That was a controversial decision for sure, but one that was worthy of a great institution like The New Yorker. Rather then rally his staff and let the actions of those choosing boycott to speak to their own personal shortcomings he blinked, tripped and fell straight on his face, in the mud. While allowing Hollywood celebrities to determine his course. I’m stunned and disappointed. Gutless does describe this move, totally.
13
What does this man have to say that is worth listening to? He's actually a failed white nationalist who was fired from his high profile job after being a bit too honest in sharing his opinion of his massively unfit presidential puppet with a sleazy author. A genius political strategist he's not. Instead he's an agitator for crazy neo-Nazi ideas. Why would a high quality news organization elevate his profile in this way in the first place? Not smart journalism, David Remnick.
37
Thank goodness.
Another safe-zone is defended.
Sadly, therapists will suffer most from this- due to lost business.
4
I think you mean another American value is defended.
1
Here's what Remnick was thinking: he made a commercial decision to create buzz around the New Yorker brand by inviting Bannon. In a perverse way, it worked -- lots of buzz -- but not the kind that Remnick anticipated.
4
Being shunned by decent people who find you and your ideas revolting and unworthy of discussion is not censorship.
Mr. Bannon: “In what I would call a defining moment, David Remnick showed he was gutless when confronted by the howling online mob.”
See the beauty, insight, wisdom, depth, and charm we are missing?
34
People who go to New Yorker events don’t go there with an open mind and to listen to opposing views. They have already made up their minds: anything that comes out of Steve Brannon’s mouth cannot have a speck of truth. Nor does Steve Bannon have any regard for the views published in the New Yorker. He will go to any event that will give him publicity. So what is this all about? Selling more copies of a magazine that most voting Americans don’t even glance at, Patrons of the magazine can now be in their “safe zone” and be with Hollywood celebrities and rich people whose views are irrelevant to most Americans. New York City is the the center of New York City, nothing more. Only New Yorkers don’t seem to know this.
13
@Citizen - I'd like to quote another entered comment: "There's really no need for Steve Bannon to be a headliner since we've already seen what he does, and what he's all about"; enough said.
11
@Citizen Why exactly does anyone need further information about Bannon's opinions? He's not going to say anything we haven't already heard.
And I'm sick and tired of hearing NYC described as if it's not part of the US. We are just as much the heartland as anywhere else is.
4
@Citizen
How is what you describe any different from those who attend Trump rallies? I could say only the flyovers don’t understand what’s being done to them and their country but I won’t. Instead let’s both act like Americans.
2
There's really no need for Steve Bannon to be a headliner since we've already seen what he does, and what he's all about.
23
Certainly Bannon has a right to free speech and his odious views, but he has no right to a platform. Kudos to the New Yorker for not providing him with one, albeit belatedly.
40
Once again, the Right (judging from some of these commenters) does not or cannot demonstrate they understand the difference between the constitutional concept of Free Speech and a Free Press. Some of the Right cannot distinguish between governmental influence in a necessary facet of a democracy (The Press) and the publisher's decisions on the who, what, where, when and why of the story. It is not the job of the Press to report what the President wants it to report. Jeez. I have to type this?
41
Kind of too bad, in my opinion. To be able to see Bannon interviewed by one of the finest journalists of our time would have been fascinating. Interviewing the man does not imply approving of him.
25
@WDP Good point. Instead, you are going to have an interview of Jim Carrey and Jack Antonoff (who?).
1
The Remnick thought to invite Bannon at all is abhorrent. Debating with a Conservative years ago would have been acceptable. The Conservatives who support or supported our current mis-Administration do not deserve a forum for their detestable opinions. When people like Bannon become acceptable and desired as guest speakers it's frightening, indeed. I admire all those who declined to be on the same stage with Bannon.
16
What a shame! This was a good opportunity to publicize how crazy Bannon is.
11
Asking Bannon what his views are is like asking a maniac who is stabbing you repeatedly to tell you his views on cutlery and butchering meat.
39
Wow. Where are the "diversity police" when you need them? This is a black eye for the New Yorker. Cowardly.
18
Commentators seem to be missing something: Bannon already has a platform. Everything he says -- however questionable or repugnant and wherever it's spoken -- gets repeated and amplified not only in his own personally-controlled channels and outlets but also in the mainstream media. (This article is an example.)
What he has not had to deal with is a capable, aggressive interviewer and a hostile audience in an environment where his views will be repeatedly challenged and cross-examined rather than mindlessly applauded by his alt-right supporters.
Would have been an interesting event.
15
I detest Bannon's opinions, but the New Yorker Festival's participants who refused to participate share the same hysterical self-righteousness and trial by tweet that sadly infects much of MeToo and 'progressive' opinion. They were not asked to sit at a panel with Bannon, or to do anything that could be construed as agreement with his views. To be consistent with their operatic indignation, they should leave town whenever Bannon is there.
14
An odd pairing for a literary sheet (however infrequently one looks to the New Yorker these days for its commitment to literature) but that's what made it interesting. I am willing to hear out and debate people far more incendiary than Bannon (who actually is rather mild in person), of whatever ideological persuasion, simply because I not only might learn something useful but because the exchange and resulting contrast in views is worthwhile for its own sake. This had always been obvious enough and well understood (even taken for granted) by both liberal and conservative thinkers until recently. Remnick faced an insurrection from his staff and other forum participants so he did what he needed to do politically and to save face so I understand why Bannon was disinvited, but he had it right initially in the broader and more important sense by being open to airing and debating the widest range of views.
13
@Frunobulax
Mr. Bannon's views are readily available in many forms for anyone who cares. They aren't relevant or interesting, and many of them are ugly.
The other participants and staff have every right to make known their objection at participating in an event which furthers what they consider to be a noxious cause.
Should we be required to host David Duke as well?
9
I definitely do not like Bannon nor anything he stands for. But a part of me feels that who better to go up against him than an audience of New Yorkers and the New Yorker. We don’t back down on anything and we just did. Lost opportunity, but then again one man should not destroy the whole festival- bring him back another day.
19
Notice how liberals, the alleged chief advocates of Free Speech, hypocritically shut down Free Speech that they don't like.
22
@MIKEinNYC You know this, but the term you capitalized twice applies solely, in the actual context of constitutional terms, to the government becoming involved in its regulation. Otherwise, when the President tells his attorney to facilitate a "catch and kill" a story which if published would damage his reputation, the government might be seen as limiting free speech if it were not for the fact that it was the publisher's choice to accept the payoff to silence the story.
I feel like I am talking into an empty barrel.
27
@Think Of One Nevertheless, it does appear that far too many “liberals” are happy to deny opportunities for the expression of viewpoints which with they disagree.
1
Cowardly. If you strongly disagree with someone's ideas, by far the best approach to discredit those ideas is to engage, and win the argument. Trying to shut down the other side's ability to make their arguments heard only makes your side look weak, and nothing ever shifts, nothing can progress. Instead, everyone retreats to the comfort of their echo chambers and intellectual silos, increasingly entrenched in their respective world views. Cowardly. I remember when so called "progressives" were much braver than this.
24
@Abraham I agree. I hate Bannon. But to dis-invite him because a bunch of simpering celebrities threatened to pull out is incredibly cowardly and weak.
10
To shun is a mistake, arguments not brought to light only grow larger, and can grow out of control
15
Think for a moment why Steve Bannon was so happy to accept this invitation. He was being given an opportunity to spray his venom in front of a paying audience of educated New Yorkers, most of whom despise him. Given his M.O., this is just the sort of thing to fire him up. Why give him that opportunity?
We all make errors of judgment from time to time, even the great David Remnick. Congratulations to him for being big and brave enough to admit a mistake and reverse it. When's the last time Steve Bannon did that? Never mention the rest of the "ditto heads" that are rusted on followers of his world view.
24
@Jack Goodman Let his supporters pay for a speaking engagement if they like him so much. No one is denying his right to speak.
18
Once again, just as people cry censorship with the banning of certain speech on social media, the lack of interest or the protest of certain types of speech at events produced by private entities is not “censorship”. You are still free to stand on your soapbox In front of city hall, say whatever you wish without fear of government retaliation. You will simply suffer the anger and counter arguments of those who disagree with you. Being kicked off a platform out in by a private magazine is simply an editorial choice. This is not a public debate. Speaking at a public university funded entirely by public tax dollars? You may have an argument for censorship. Just as this comment may. It be approved by the times, I am not being subject to censorship, merely an editorial choice. I am free to post this comment in context on the tree in the public square with no fear of legal punishment.
18
I am all for free speech and listening to views that differ from my own but Steve Bannon is a completely different story. We and the world already know his views from his time in the WH and his position of as an alt-right darling. I don't think The New Yorker needs to "headline" him for the sake of discussion...there is no discussion with Bannon; he would have been there as a way to further legitimize his twisted belief system and add to his personal arsenal. He is the epitome of self-promotion and I am happy The New Yorker has decided to dis-invite him despite knowing he will use it as more mileage for his hateful rhetoric.
20
We are readers of New Yorker.
Bannon never should have been invited to a forum with an audience.
Bannon lost his Trump audience; an interview for New Yorker readers that FOX could not splash on TV and twist to Alt rgt purposes is enough!
7
If you hadn’t pulled his invite, we could have challenged his foolish, vile ideas that will do nothing but ruin democracy. As much as I would be tempted to do the same, now is the time to expose this man for what he is. What a lost opportunity.
8
Steve Bannon campaigned for Roy Moore in Alabama. That in and of itself would be enough to shun him. David Remnick acted swiftly in dis-inviting him, but why was he asked in the first place?
13
Mr. Bannon may present his own speech at wherever he chooses, and have as many of his supporters attend as possible. That's free speech. The New Yorker does not need to give a platform to hate and anti semitism. I am sorry that anyone thought that was a good idea. In a time where debate is most needed, this was not debate, it was a giant advertisement, and was used to draw ticket sales. It seems like a desperate act on the part of the New Yorker. I am sure there circulation is suffering, like all mainstream publications. And I am sorry for that. Only a group of older, white, liberal readers left for them and that group is dwindling.
7
@Meighan "I am sure there (sic) circulation is suffering, like all mainstream publications." I recently renewed my NEW YORKER subscription after 5-6 years lapse. Amid the Bannon cancellation conjecture, I wondered whether my subscription renewal was part of a trend or something else. I did a little research and found that NEW YORKER subscription and newstand sales have actually increased by 10-15% in each of the past 3 reporting years. After steady shrinking sales, the industry is enjoying a similar rate of increase. One thing that seperates NEW YORKER from most periodicals is that a greater portion of income (65%) is derived from actual magazine sales (65%), compared to advertising revenue. Some believe increased readership, across the board, is part of a "Trump phenomenon". I'm not sure whether it's the drama in the current White House or that Americans are worried about how it will effect their lives; but that's my opnion.
1
@Meighan. Thanks for the compliment.
I’m disappointed in the New Yorker. It’s time we stop putting our heads in the sand and pretending like Trumpism or Bannon are “fringe”. White supremacy was normalized when America sent it to the White House.
The underlying issue for me - that I never really hear addressed - is that Bannon (or Trump) are not the real problem. The real problem is that there are 62 million people in this country that put those two in the White House. That terrifies me. Even if we make Trump a 1 term president - what do we do with the other 61,999,999 people?
We need to publicly take their IDEAS apart one by one and reveal them for what they are - the same old backward, antiquated, racist ideas that we fought against (and won) in the 20th century.
And frankly an interview is the perfect forum - it is not a platform for Bannon to openly express his ideas (like a speech) - it’s a forum to take him apart while we all watch, and publicly take a stand against people like Bannon.
9
@Mike I agree that the we need to publicly take apart the IDEAS that are contrary to the democratic ideals of our country. Riddle me this, though, how many of the 62 mil who voted for Trump and apparently support the platform of white supremacy, Darwinian capitalism, and the elevation of "feelings' over expertise would be attending the New Yorker Festival?
3
I haven't noticed Fox News or Sinclair engaging even moderate liberal voices despite their government granted monopoly on certain commonly owned broadcast frequencies.
This is actually a much more significant 1st Amendment issue by virtue of this monopoly granted by the government.
Anyone can buy a press and print what they want, but a license to broadcast on the public airwaves is restricted.
10
Sure Bannon has a right to speak freely. But I and others also have a right not to have to listen to what he has to say. He can peddle his hate and fear-mongering elsewhere. Why he was invited to this forum in the first place is a good question.
14
A missed opportunity to kill the messenger, no more. The battle between Right and Left is just getting started.
1
So instead of making headlines with energetic debate, make headlines with pathetic cowardice.
12
For me, there’s nothing Bannon has to say that I want to hear.
Back to the dark recesses for you.
12
And what is the upshot here: Remnick comes away a loser-loser. Bannon a winner-winner. Mr. Remnick played into Bannon's hands. For what? The New Yorker now will lose money on this. The real problem seems to be Bannon was the best they could do? No one else out there who could have drawn a crowd? What the New Yorker showed a willingness to do was scrape the bottom of the barrel. Get Spike Lee instead!
9
The New Yorker is a private concern so they may do what they wish. It is a bad look though, one that again makes a mockery of the Left's complaints about Trump and his alleged impact on a free society.
2
As long as we track what the ministers of hate are doing. It is a mistake to think that if we deny them a national stage thier influence decreases, it may move underground and fester and grow, like black mold in the walls after a flood.
4
David Remnick is an extraordinary editor, and "The New Yorker" has done great things on his watch -- including unsparing analysis of Donald Trump and his administration. His organizational and political sense, however, is clearly lacking. He evidently consulted with almost no one on the Bannon invitation; and he failed to perceive -- as his critics accurately did -- the difference between interviewing Bannon for the magazine and holding an exchange with him on a well-appointed public stage. Doing so would inevitably convey the same friendly impression that he did in telling Bannon that it would be "an honor" to have him attend.
Remnick thoroughly misjudged the venue, the other invitees, and even his own staff. And those who so fervently objected and forced him to cancel this ill-judged invitation may have saved him from the even worse disaster of having something close to an audience riot at the event itself. Those who attend such events would loathe Bannon, and they would make that loathing visible and audible.
As it was, Remnick's fast retreat saved the festival, but at the price of giving Bannon an unearned gift of "martyrdom" at the hands of intolerant liberals. There's no reason for Remnick to lose his job; his day-to-day editorial work is outstanding. But he needs to rethink how "The New Yorker" will manage such public events in future. That these events provide a noticeable part of the publication's income only makes that rethinking more necessary.
21
Once we lose free speech in this country, all other freedoms follow. The same people that applaud this exclusion would be screaming to the high heavens if a more moderate or liberal voice was cancelled as inappropriate.
Let people like this s their views can be heard. You gain nothing listening to people that you already fully agree with.
10
We have heard what Bannon has to say. We don’t need to hear anymore. If you want to hear him, his odious opinions are readily available on the internet.
7
I have tremendous respect for David Remnick but do not understand his invitation to Steve Bannon to appear at the New Yorker Festival. The upset put in motion by his decision to invite/disinvite Bannon casts a cloud over a joyous and celebratory literary event.
13
Free speech is also the right to not speak where a person feels not to. There actually is an appropriate silence.
7
Aaah .. “Appropriate silence”, that is what Trump would say he would like from the press.
1
Whatever happened to listening to all voices and debate? I'm opposed to Bannon's ideology and politics but until Americans are willing to listen to others with opposing views AND calmly engage in discussion this country will remain divided. Understand that there are millions of people who think just as Bannon does. How, as a people, do we change that? Certainly not by denying some a platform. That will just grow resentment and fuel more rhetoric (on all sides). Let's be adults, shall we?
32
@Teresa I believe I am acting as an adult in my opposition to giving this bully a platform to spew his hate.
Just like a school yard bully, these Alt-Right haters do not listen to adult talk. They see their target trying to engage them in conversation as weak and vulnerable. Clearly, as we have to tell our children, you need to stand up to bully's otherwise they will not only continue their hateful behavior but will push harder and harder.
One of the problems we have as Liberals and Democrats is that we talk and talk to convince people of our positions while the Republicans and Conservatives do whatever is necessary (to them) to get power and remain in office. We need to start "hitting" back if we want to stop the bullying of our Country.
A perfect example was the Republican Senate refusing to consider President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court. "Talk" would not have, and did not, change a thing. Consider what the Court would be like, even with Trumps nominee today, if President Obama's nominee had been given a vote?
2
So, the New Yorker is going the way of the Red Hen. No problem for me, I can't wait to see the stock drop and the doors close.
8
I applaud those who expressed an unwillingness to appear in the same forum as Bannon. Bannon made a bed that many are unwilling to lay in, especially with him. The nightmare of the current political climate continues unabated. Giving one of its creators free publicity and expression undermines the nation and the Constitution and further encourages racism and white nationalism.
25
@vincentgaglione Worse than free publicity, he would have been paid for the engagement! Augh!
1
Really, New Yorker? You didn't anticipate this? Just wow.
106
I'm for free speech -- that's why I write these comments, and I am deeply grateful to the NYT for presenting them. I am mindful that the concept of "free speech" can be misconstrued in the same way that "fair and balanced" has been -- free speech does not mean that lies and libel do not exist, and it does not compel granting equal time to anyone who claims to represent a distinct ideology. Hitler's appearances in the 1930's, engineering the rise of the Nazi party, were not public relations events or political fora -- they were sedition. Civil order in the US has had its faults -- evidenced mainly by discrimination against minority groups -- but there is a distinction between minorities who have been excluded on the basis of inherent traits such as race, gender, or class, and minorities who are deliberately antisocial. Bannon has had more than his share of access to public platforms, and he does not need a helping hand from the New Yorker. We already know what he said to the National Front [Festival] last March, in France: “Let them call you racist. Let them call you xenophobes. Let them call you nativist. Wear it as a badge of honor,” Bannon said, to fervent applause. “Because every day, we get stronger, and they get weaker.” (NY Magazine)
73
If you don't believe that racial hatred and right wing conspriracy theories are a danger to the well being of the country, welcome Bannon with open arms. If you do believe that we, like the Germany of the 1930's are in a place where acceptance of the sort of destruction of rights for people who are not white , heterosexual Christians, presents an existential threat to us all, do not give Bannnon a platform.
80
So Remnick finally came to his senses. Too bad it took others threatening to cancel their participation for him to do the right thing. Bannon's message is toxic and dangerous. What was Remnick thinking to start with?
121
@Susan L. Paul
Inasmuch as Bannon was prematurely shut down you have no idea what he would have said. What is wrong with airing all sides of issues?
4
@MIKEinNYCWhat sides of what issue was Bannon going to represent? The side that says white people are disadvantaged in the U.S. and anyone who doesn't support Trump is evil? Thanks, but I've heard that before.
6
@MIKEinNYC. We are all aware what Bannon would have said. His message hasn't changed and is being broadcast continuously on the right wing noise machine. He has his platform. The New Yorker doesn't need to give him another.
3
Mr. Remnick has made the right choice; it‘s just a shame he couldn‘t make it from the get-go. Bannon’s place at the NYer is in a frank interview; asking him to headline such an event is beyond the pale.
As to claims of “suppression of free speech”: there is no shortage of outlets for his views. His insults can be ignored; a bully is a bully, and a disinvitation is also an exercise of First Amendment rights.
29
"We would be honored to have you."
That David Remnick signed a letter to Steve Bannon containing those words makes me shudder.
116
@creepingdoubt Ditto. And ditto that Kavanaugh told Trump it was an honor to be nominated by him.
17
@creepingdoubt as bad as Pence being honored to share a stage with pardoned criminal Arpaio and Trump being honored to stand with the criminal leaders of North Korea and Russia.
3
As someone who detests Stephen Bannon and his entire philosophy, I am afraid he is correct in this matter; it is a cowardly move. It would have been far better to have his nonsense on display, if for no other reason than to see where the "other side" is at. Wouldn’t this information be useful to the Democrats prior to the mid-terms? Look, you are never going to convince some Trump supporters to listen to reason, but what about those reluctant Trumpists? Simply ignoring the other side won’t win elections.
27
This capitulation by the New Yorker is unfortunate. Steve Bannon - regardless of his political opinions - is a highly newsworthy individual having worked closely with the most powerful man on the planet. When media starts caving into political correct pressure the country loses
38
Amidst all the name calling is a palpable fear that Bannon would have been too intelligent, too convincing, and too interesting. Those who canceled come across as weak. They seem worried about being upstaged. If they actually were confident in their message, they would have debated him instead of getting his invitation rescinded. They just made him into a hero and made themselves into timid mice afraid of free speech.
32
@Caleb Mars --"Too interesting and too intelligent?" Steve Bannon is grooming America to accept white nationalism as a defining value. Because he can convey this reprehensible idea in smart, snappy prose doesn't make him someone who should be given a platform.
6
@Caleb Mars those who pulled out are being civilly disobedient. Shunning is appropriate to those who rally in racism and hatred. One of the last places Americans can actually have an impact is through their spending habits. The New Yorker is welcome and has the right to air the drivel of Bannon, and we the public have the right not to attend, nor listen to, nor share a stage with this vile selfish hate monger, nor purchase the magazine. We have heard non stop the ideas of these sorts of people, they have been given platforms far outweighing their talent. There is no justification for racism, there is "no other side." Liberals and principled people keep thinking they can reason with these characters, there is no reasoning or middle ground with a person who says "wear your racism like a badge of honor." He can not be educated or sensitized. Let him go on Youtube. Other voices need to be heard, the customers spoke, and in a business decision, The New Yorker responded. It is actually quite materialistic and capitalistic if you really think about it. Bannon should respect this very business friendly decision as brilliant and courageous
5
Would like to know how many of you who expressed outrage one way or the other have ever attended a New Yorker festival? Know what it is? When it is?
7
@Scott Weil
Yes, I do know what and where and when it is!
Does that really matter if you don’t. It’s the principle!
9
What difference does that make?
5
"Mr. Bannon lashed out at Mr. Remnick, calling him 'gutless' for rescinding the invitation."
What a badge of honor for Mr. Remnick.
41
Remnick’s intentions were naive. Invite Bannon to a podcast, but an open formum in NY - he was inviting violence. Free speech is acceptable but in this cauldron, this political environment? It became a no win situation! Wrong from the getgo!
25
It seems like the main rationale for interviewing Bannon (as Remnick explained in his email to the New Yorker's staff in which he announced that the invitation to Bannon had been rescinded) was to increase our understanding of Bannon and those of his ilk. If Remnick really believed that, that seems naive, to me. What more about fascists, white nationalists and bigots of all stripes do we need to understand? At this point in human history, isn't it enough simply to acknowledge that such things to which the word "evil" has historically been applied exist? Why do people like Bannon think as they do? One might as well ponder why bad things happen to good people, why cancer exists, why some people enjoy torturing small animals or how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Let future historians ponder the whys and wherefores. Anything that Americans do now other than mount a relentless and unified resistance to the forces of evil (meaning Trumpism) is pure frivolity. We don't need to understand evil. We need to conquer it. And we don't need to interview its spokesmen or understand them in order to do that.
185
@David Indeed I wondered Why. Why the invitation was extended in the first place. You say it well here. We do not need to hear Bannon again. He has already had plenty of opportunity to spout his heinous ideology. What more could there be to understand? Bannon thinks we refuse to listen? We have listened and we refuse his hateful ideas.
32
Time for Remnick to think about retiring. Evidently, he was asleep during the Williamson controversy. Headling with a white supremicist just might send the teensiest message to your P.O.C. employees about the place they are working. Even if you were going to engage in, what was the phrase? Stern questioning? The damage is done. You want to interview, do an interview. You want to make an "event", you make an event. Utterly brainless way to make an event. Only thing worse that I can think of is Remnick in "conversation" with Harvey Weinstein. Wait, has he thought of that?...
34
Even though Remnick canceled, if he doesn't resign, I will cancel my subscription.
10
Stave "flame thrower" Bannon has plenty of forums in which to rant, equivocate, spew lies and send out dog whistles; he needs fewer venues not more. His tactics got us Trump and the dismantling of our democracy. I fail to see how providing this destructive man yet another forum and "asking him difficult questions and engaging in a serious and even combative conversation” will further enlighten us, or that further enlightenment will help us, or restore our country's democracy and health.
To paraphrase Judd Apatow: giving this destructive man a platform is normalizing hate.
254
@Sara G.
I disagree. Philosophically I find Bannon to be a wholly negative force, a mouthpiece for, and amplifier of, much of what represents the worst in our current politics. But I looked forward to the collision between his dark machinations and David Remnick's light-throwing intelligence. Moreover, having the New Yorker capitulate to pressure and deny him an invitation the magazine itself had extended -- that only gives more ammo to those on the right who go around ranting about liberal intolerance and speech codes. Finally, while Bannon is a rightwing nationalist, he is not, you know, Julius Streicher. He is a person who should be refuted, not disinvited. Bring him into the house, then argue him out the door.
26
@bert: I hear you...yet I'm overdone with the "collision between...dark machinations throwing intelligence". Every day, every newscast and newspaper article. Enough already.
As for the likely criticsm from the usual suspects, it doesn't matter as they'll criticize anyway. They criticize and distort everything, all the time. Placating bullies or gaslighters doesn't work.
9
@Sara G.
It's a tough call -- for me, anyway -- with slippery slopes on both sides. But this man was recently in government, powerfully placed, and he represents and advocates a line of insidious notions that have both power and purchase in the U.S. right now. Do we not trust someone like David Remnick to put those ideas in context? To me the New Yorker comes off seeming either afraid or merely superior. Are those good options?
Contending speech among political players in our civic square is an essence of our political system. Banning someone by pronouncing his ideas mere hate, that's a tool that should be used sparingly. Don't distinctions have to be made between a Bannon and, say, a David Duke?
2
What could Mr. Remnick have been thinking? Why legitimize Bannon? The well respected platform of The New Yorker is not a place for hate speech. This gets to the heart of the problem with the media now and before the 2016 election. Giving voice to hate as if it were a legitimate angle from which to run a campaign. And now to run a country. Bannon and his ilk — their voices don’t deserve air/stage time. Hate has no place in our democracy.
93
Bannon comes off like a chess master on this one. If he was allowed to speak, he could have tried to manipula a liberal New York audience. By getting dropped, he can cry out loud about how liberal New Yorkers oppose free speech.
It would have been better to challenge him in an open forum and expose him.
15
@Howard This nation is so dishonest it cannot even discuss what an “establishment of religion” is.
3
Howard, I respectfully disagree. It would have been better to have not invited him at all.
20
Aren't they the same cowards that hired and fired Kevin Williamson within 24 hours.
2
@EJ No, they’re not.
12
@EJ that would be the Atlantic, Sir. Before throwing insults, get the facts straight.
12
Our subscription would have already been already cancelled if the New Yorker's subscription department hadn't been closed for Labor Day. Although David Remnick eventually realized the bad choice he had made, his initial booking of Steve Bannon suggests that the magazine's readership would somehow place lively conversation with an alt. right headliner over the continued fracturing of our country. Steve Bannon deserves no platform, just as we don't feel obligated to provide a warm, fresh petri dish for virulent bacteria.
134
What became of free and open exchange of ideas? I find Bannon extremely offensive but if we are to understand what he's about we shouldn't refuse to hear him. Keep your enemies closer.
14
@James: "...if we are to understand what he's about we shouldn't refuse to hear him."
We don't understand what he's all about? I'm sorry but Bannon has been front page news and editorial page topic for better than two years. We know quite clearly what he's all about. Bannon has so many platforms upon which he is warmly welcomed to perform he hardly needs another. Yup, the right wing will scream censorship. Ask Fox News about censorship--it's the expert in the field and a good friend of Bannon.
98
@James. I understand exactly what he's about.
The cancellation of Steve Bannon from speaking at the New Yorker Festival is a mistake. Rather than suppressing free speech and opposing views the New Yorker should allow Mr. Bannon to speak and allow his fellow panelists to rebut his positions. If participants believe Mr. Bannon's points of view amount to hate speech (not necessarily meeting the legal standard for hate speech) it will be on display for attendees to hear and draw their own conclusions. Suppressing free speech for one point of view puts all points of view, unpopular or not, subject to being silenced.
17
@Bill Every day is Groundhog Day now. There is nothing more to learn about Trump and his enablers except what crime will be revealed next.
132
@Bill Free speech has not been suppressed. As far as I can tell, Bannon never stops spouting his venom. Only one venue is now being denied him, hardly a muzzle to free speech.
20
@Steve Bolger I agree there is nothing new to learn about Trump or his enablers. In fact, I disagree with everything Mr. Bannon stands for. What I do believe is a person's unfettered right to express themselves Uninviting Bannon is the other side of the same coin: conservatives silencing liberals. When this happens there is a breakdown in the social fabric of our society.
This works. It's a very different kind of thing than an organization refusing to sponsor a controversial speaker. The New Yorker had little choice here, because the event would evaporate in the absence of so many important participants. When individuals decline to share a stage with an odious character, (such as Bannon), it's more truthful, and more effective.
He's not being censored, he's being avoided. Erroll Morris has spoken eloquently about the process of making his film on Bannon. Bannon took part in the film freely. That should provide all the sunlight needed to disinfect his repulsive views.
76
@Sera
"He's not being censored, he's being avoided."
I think George Orwell called this Newspeak.
10
@Ian
It's nothing of the sort. Personal actions by individuals are in themselves expressions of free speech. Censorship is an official action of a governing body, not private decisions by citizens.
Think of the response of (I believe) Oliver Wendell Holmes to a man demanding his services:
"Yes, you have the right to an attorney, but you don't have a right to me."
Steve Bannons free speech has not been taken away, only removed from the company of those who find the speech of hateful people abhorrent.
It's good to quote Orwell, but it's a good idea, first, to understand him.
16
Bad decision to hire him, bad decision to fire him.
43