Well said. Until the Democrats, the liberal media and never-trumpers start engaging the disaffected, frustrated, predominantly male and often young voters who misguidedly and probably desperately cast their lot in with Trump - and until they start engaging that voter rather than trying to silence his/her “champions” - they won’t truly understand that voter or see his or her humanity and this nation won’t begin healing. Oh, and they won’t beat Trump in 2020.
10
I am a liberally-minded independent. I don't subscribe to the New Yorker, but I plan to, just so I can cancel the subscription.
4
This opinion is all wrong. As a faithful lifetime New Yorker subscriber, I applaud the artists who refused to participate in a forum that included Bannon. The point is not to give Bannon a "difficult" interview, the point is to deprive Bannon of the opportunity to spew his hateful nonsense. He does not deserve to be heard. he has nothing legitimate to say. Well done, Mr. Remnick, for courageously rescinding the invitation.
8
@Sunspot
So said every despot, fascist, emperor, supreme-ruler of the past fews dozen centuries.
Silencing should be reserved for the few very egregious and hateful speakers that have vacacted their right to public discourse.
Everyone else should be taken apart in the court of public engagement and debate - unless we are afraid our arguments are unpersuasive and lacking [I don't].
13
One need not join this discussion to recognize that inviting Bannon to take part in the Festival was a mistake. Mr Bannon recently gave an interview to Ari Melber. It contributed some valuable quotes but mostly Bannon just steamrolled Melber with his usual ranting style. Even though David Remnick may be a more talented interviewer but I sincerely doubt he would have come away with a more significant result. Bannon is yesterday's news. Inviting him was a ware of time. The decision to uninvite him was embarrassing, but seemingly necessary to preserve the event. I really think the moral of the story is, ignore Steve Bannon.
6
This article seems focused on finding reasons to make democrats look spineless.....an excuse for someone in an ostentatious bow tie to explain why they don't like the dress someone else is wearing. Bannon gets loads of press. Is it the purpose of the New Yorker festival to become another zone of hopeless argument? There's tons of that on a daily basis. More than ever before. The festival has decided in favor of preserving its sanity. Amen.
4
George Wallace was a governor and Presidential candidate and Khomeini ruled a nation. What is Bannon's portfolio exactly?
Substitute "Alex Jones" for "Steve Bannon" in this editorial for some amusement.
3
Dear Mr. Stephens,
In the middle of World War II you do not invite Heinrich Himmler for tea and crumpets.
9
By letting Bannon speak America can hear what his views really are. As with Sen. Joseph McCarthy I believe Bannon would lose all support from the wise people of America.
5
Really want to know what Bannon believes and stands for, and challenge him on those beliefs? Do what the New Yorker magazine does best -- longform journalism. Their own Ryan Lizza did a piece on Bannon in August 2017. Maybe it's time for David Remnick to do an update. Having Bannon appear at the New Yorker festival is a lose-lose for the New Yorker magazine and its audience. This dissembling demagogue would be given a public platform to engage in his standard dog whistling and to foment his followers by exploiting his underdog status. And David Remnick and his likely like-minded attendees would come out looking to their adversaries the same as before -- like a bunch of intolerant and elite liberals. What service then has been done in the name of changing minds and hearts?
3
Pathetic. I'd much rather hear a pointed interview with Bannon than absolutely anything autism/vaccination expert Jim Carrey has to say or the familiar clichés of Hollywood liberal Judd Apatow. Booooring.
NYC was a lot more interesting when it was dangerous, when it still had an edge. Now it's Marin County with bad weather. Safe and boring.
What's next, a G rated Disney musical about fun times in the bathrooms at CBGB's?
Gutless is right.
15
As a long time New Yorker subscriber I am absolutely appalled that Mr. Remnick has capitulated to the mob. Let Apatow and Carrey not show up! He should fire Schultz. I'm not ready to cancel my subscription just yet but I am as shocked as I was the morning after Trump's election!
15
As Voltaire is reputed to have said: "Sir, I may object to what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it!"
Will we never learn?
JD
6
Actually, the interview I'd really like to see live is Robert Mueller hosting Steve Bannon.
2
Maybe Bannon has a new pumpkin spice-flavored twist on fascism of which I'm unaware, but I'm tempted to believe his "opposing viewpoint" is not that dissimilar from what I found in Mein Kampf once, when I picked it up out of curiosity.
Remnick probably realized via Twitter most New Yorker readers would probably be less interested than revolted. And since he's trying to sell subscriptions to his magazine, customers come first.
Like Mueller/Trump, Remnick could send Bannon the questions, then Bannon could tweet the answers. Or stand on a street corner and shout them...whatever. I won't be listening.
1
The tweet I read was that Steve Bannon was invited to be "the headliner at their Ideas Festival" yes, I was put off by that. But in the context of this article it doesn't sound the same.
It is shocking how much I am affected by marketing and words.
Mr. Stephens, you are being disingenuous. As reader jimstoic wrote in reply to this column, you had no problem protesting Columbia University inviting a speaker you didn’t like (in a Wall St. Journal article you wrote in 2007) and saw no free speech value then to giving that person a platform.
The New Yorker Festival is a cultural festival and a paying gig. That’s why musicians, artists and celebrities like Jimmy Fallon are sharing that stage with newsmakers. Making Steve Bannon the headliner of that event is very different than inviting him to a solo debate or interviewing for the magazine. Inherently, intentionally or not it elevates Bannon’s status and to some extent endorses his point of view as valid. And by buying tickets to the event, some festival goers may feel complicit in that validation.
Calling the commenters on Twitter who expressed disapproval of the invite a “mob” is unfair. Are the people responding to your column a mob, or just the people who disagree with you? And it was the protest of other festival guests and New Yorker staff itself that drove the revocation of the invite as much as reader protests. Remnick himself said as much. Again, you are being disingenuous.
And do you really feel reporters who openly disagree with their editors should expect to be fired? Where is their right to free speech? Do you think the WSJ journalists who recently protested their editor’s biases should be punished?
3
Twitter does no such thing! The title of this piece at least made me read it. Fool me once Bret. It's dishonest to cynically suggest that Twitter edits the New Yorker because of this incident about something so tangential as Bannon's invitation to this festival. And I'll take the magazine's so-called "echo chamber" any day, as I have for years. It has held my trust.
Though I'm a native New Yorker and long time subscriber to the magazine and this publication, I was heartened by Remnick's initial concept. And I agree with Stephens about the value of the dialogue--especially if it were conducted ruthlessly and fairly. How do we risk anything but our energy by facing down Trolls like Bannon. The "thinking" on the far right tends toward the current version of "red-baiting." Done for effect with the know-nothings who buy the white nationalist grievance. Exposure will kill it more surely than a "holier than thou" refusal to engage. This holds as well for liberal "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings" at our colleges. When the left had to fight for a place of any kind in the public sphere, there was no quaking from debating fascists and red baiters. Now we're too good for a donnybrook. Not a good sign.
3
As someone heading into my 7th decade, I was initially torn about this and give it some thought.
But I grew up in rural Mississippi and giving public voice to racist hatemongers is something I don't like to see.
I know enough about Steve Bannon to know that this interview would be him talking (yelling) over the interviewer and pounding his chest. He doesn't care what the rest of us think. So I'm tired of hearing what he thinks.
3
There are some people that are best left alone. They are poison and the damage they do is often fatal. Mr. Bannon has nothing to bring to a rational conversation. George Wallace was reachable and though he was a bigot, his beliefs were based on historic ideas that in the 1960's were being regretted and replaced with new beliefs. Mr. Bannon harkens back to beliefs and philosophies rejected by history and society. The idea that the left defeats itself by rejecting him is sophistry. Most conservatives loathe the man as a crank and an embarrassment. The New Yorker represents a mature sober assessment of what's going on, that is the magazines appeal. Mr. Bannon has no place among the mature sober or rational.
3
This is nothing but pure deflection. Instead of worrying about Bannon, why not address more important questions. For example, when is Trump going to have an actual new conference?
1
David Remnick threw away his reputation giving in to celebrities and Twitter trolls. His job, his main job, is to be objective, probing and fearless, and that includes interviewing people you don't like. To back down because a few celebrities dropped out of his festival was a journalistic failure unlike any other. He will now always be perceived as a subjective journalist who catered to the whims of the left.
4
What Bannon advocates may be, and is, despicable, but his analyses and criticisms of the left have always been right on the money; and Remnick, with the aid of people like Judd Apatow and Jim Carrey, has just proved it. Yet again.
Remnick destroyed the New Yorker a long time ago; but to knuckle under to Hollywood celebrities (who, after Hillary Clinton's failed campaign, really ought to know they should shut up) and social media, birthplace of all witch hunts, should be astounding.
Except that it's not. Another nail in the coffin for a magazine and a city that have lost all relevance, save to themselves and their like-minded friends in Hollywood.
Bannon must be rolling on the floor: this is the kind of thing he prays for. When they do this, he has often said, we win. He's right. Trump is another step closer to reelection, today.
8
Twitter was at fault? The 'mob' is running the New Yorker? Take a deep breath. Important people were pulling out of the event. Bannon has way fewer fans than Jim Carrey. This was not a question of political courage. It took courage to realize that the editor made a mistake and courage to correct that mistake.
21
Fantastic op-ed. Thank you, Mr. Stephens. You are spot on.
1
Bret much of the major media, most notably the NY Times has been a Left-wing version of Fox and Friends for years! So I don't see why this latest Left wing terrorism is any surprise! It was inevitable that the neo Marxists - who have taken over & silenced differing opinion on campuses, slanted most of the major media to the left, almost start a race war over police shootings and infiltrated and turned much of the public against environmental groups would target IT and social media next, and end up using them as weapons of conquest as well. Obviously the goal of the Left is to send everyone who dares disagree with them to a Siberia like social Gulag of exclusion where their existences and opinions cease to matter.
2
Bannon may have been a cause of this tragedy, but I'm tired of rehashing the causes and giving a continuing platform to its luminaries. I'm tired of "Ooh, look. the president did this. Ooh, then he did that!" We know what he is, and the daily drum of the next frightening thing he does is necessary information. But the discussion now needs to be "What can and should be done about it, starting now?" Bannon is not part of that discussion, and I was surprised at Remnick for going with the old news (to say nothing of giving a respectable platform to a dangerous bigot). Surprised at B. Stephens, too.
1
Excellent. NYT is lucky to have you.
2
Left-wing ideology is intellectually bankrupt, and the only way to keep it afloat is to silence all opposing views. This is why foxnews loves inviting liberals and grilling them in front of millions of viewers, which is why Shapiro invited a left-wing celebrity politician Cortez to a debate, and which is why liberal activists would try their best to prevent anyone from hearing a conservative.
2
@Hyphenated American, I'd be delighted to be made a fool of on Fox News. I hope they send an invite.
That Bannon, supporter of fascist causes here and abroad, would have been invited in the first place is disgusting. I thought the same when the New York Times gave space to Bret Stephens, who claims that climate change is not a threat and insisted as late as 2013 that the Bush administration had solid evidence for going to war with Iraq. Why do credible institutions want to choose such extremists in an effort to show balance?
1
Terrific column! And your point about journalists' behavior in public/online are important. We learn to trust a lot of journalists and it can be disconcerting and even upsetting to see some ill-considered comments elsewhere in the public realm. Even if we know journalists are of a particular political persuasion, usually they exercise discretion so as not to ruin their reputations.
The Trump disaster has uncovered a lot of other flaws in our democracy that surely need addressing if we are to get back on track. Vote Democratic in November for a start!
Please explain, Bret, what is "on the road to their own left-wing version of “Fox & Friends.” Would the left's version be a forum that endlessly tells truth? Because Fox and Friends endlessly tell lies.
4
As a minority I pick and choose who I want to listen to. Just like white people. Free speech is important but hate speech we can all do without. Mr. Bannon has nothing to tell me that I don't know already. The New Yorker should never of invited him, we can watch all of his press statements on line. He is like Trump a vessel for hate. It would of been a waste of good money for people in attendance who really are part of the bigger world and not a small fringe group of hate.
I will enjoy the activities now without a hater. There is a time and place for everything. This festival was neither the place nor time for a revisit to the 1930's . I am sure Mr. Bannon can fill his dance card with another event more to his racial and intellectual status.
7
Maybe the whole thing could have been avoided had the other invitees been given coloring books.
1
No one forced the New Yorker to cancel Bannon's appearance. Other invitees said they would boycott the festival if he appeared, and a boycott is a traditional method of expressing one's disagreement in a free society. The magazine could certainly have gone ahead with the appearance and simply endured whatever would be the consequences of the boycott. They chose not to. So?
2
I am frequently appalled by what I see on social media. Twitter-- in that it demands that comments to any topic, no matter how complex, be limited to a few characters-- may be the worst. Also, any form of social media that encourages immediate responding is a bad idea. But, in the case of Mr Bannon... good riddance. The man tells you he is (tactically, at least) a Lenninist. He wants to use the institutions and rules of civilized society to undermine civilized society. Let's not help him.
4
There's a difference between interviewing somebody you disagree with and inviting that person to a festival. The first is journalism, the second is an honor, one that Steve Bannon and his politics of white nationalism do not deserve.
As for the claim that Twitter edits the magazine, nothing could be further from the truth. The New Yorker rescinded the invitation because the journalists who work for the magazine stood up to the publisher and persuaded him that his editorial judgment was misguided.
3
It works well when by accusing journalists of being weak and succumbing to the "social media mob" pressures we can actually bing into the light controversial voices, for a healthy discourse. However, there is nothing healthy or even newsworthy about Bannon and his views of the world. We know very well where he stands on every issue and what motivates him, and I don't see anything valuable about giving him a platform to spew more of the same. Personally I'm not always happy with the effects of how social media manipulates our brain space, but in this case I'm really glad we're spared the toxicity of his viewpoints. There are limits to what should be aired, even in a society with unlimited freedom of speech. In another era, would be OK to give Goring an opportunity to express his opinions, even before it was known what he was engaging in? Bannon is a ruthless white supremacist and there's no value in listening to him; in this case shielding from harm overrides the principal.
5
I completely agree. (To be honest, what most offended me was the fawning invitation, not the invitation itself, to Bannon by Remnick.)
I'm looking forward to the day when institutions begin to ignore the roar of the social media minority; let them scream and cry. The baby will eventually fall asleep.
4
As one of my friends so wisely put it: "Bret Stephens.. doesn't seem to know the difference between interviewing a controversial subject for publication and paying them thousands of dollars to be a part of a "festival" that has little to do with journalism."
5
Mr.s Apatow and Carrey, together with Ms. Schulz (who should be fired for being a poor journalist), would rather enjoy a celebration of liberalism, an increasingly insular bi-coastal cult, rather than see liberalism rise to political power again in this country. Self-congratulation will not rid us of Trump and his ilk. We must engage with and challenge these ideas. These people are not illegitimate; those not blinded by their self-righteousness will realize Bannon's people hold power in this country, fairly elected according to the laws of the land. Challenging their legitimacy has not yet worked, and is unlikely to. In a democracy, legitimacy grow from popular support. Only by challenging their ideas can they be defeated.
1
@Tom
The writers at the festival are not a "bicoastal cult'. Tell me where Japanese writer Haruki Murakami and novelist Zadie Smith from England fit into your over-simplified, over-generalized formula here.
2
Mr. Stephens makes some interesting arguments; but I feel that he's presenting an overly romanticized picture of editorial authority and journalism's duty to "speak truth to power." Yes the digital age has made it possible for anyone with a keyboard to amplify their ideas at unprecedented speed and scale. Get used to it. Journalism (and editorial authority) has always been determined by the greater dynamics of the marketplace of ideas, just as it also shapes that marketplace. It's a dialectical relationship, and in this case, the market signal sent by the progressive bullies in Mr. Stephens's "mob" (and other reasonable people) says, in effect, that hate monger Bannon has exhausted his welcome. He chose to amplify his inflammatory message and now he's all burnt out with nothing left to share. We've reached peak Bannon. What more can we learn about his particular brand of racism and hate? Do Stephens and Remnick actually believe Bannon has anything further to say or that the proposed combative engagement would be otherwise interesting or productive? I question the tone-deafness of the invitation, which smells of naive self indulgence and fifth estate-navel gazing. Sometimes "speaking truth to power" means not not letting power speak.
3
Wait just a minute. If the New Yorker had never invited Bannon would anyone be saying that the New Yorker must invite him? No, just stating the proposition shows how silly it is. It is their "Festival." The New Yorker can invite, disinvite, reinvite at will and I don't think anyone really has a valid complaint. If there is some big philosophical point about all this why aren't we in a rage because the WSJ doesn't invite and pay George Soros to come to their events?
2
"A common complaint of liberal journalists about conservative politicians is that the latter lack for courage. As in: Paul Ryan knows that Donald Trump is a bigot and a danger, but the House speaker lacks the courage to stand up to the president......"
I actually think that it represents lack of courage by liberal journalists. They should see Paul Ryan's silence, as well as the silence of others, for what it is: betrayal of their country. And, they should be courageous enough to call it as such.
Let's face the fact. If, during the election, the liberal journalists were not so careful in guarding their language regarding Mr. Trump's background, today a minion of Russian Mafia will not be in the White House.
On second thought, may be treasonous behavior is not limited to politicians who choose silence. We all remember how the conservative media treated former CIA director John Brennan, after he courageously called Trump's Helsinki meeting with Putin, and his performance there, “nothing short of treasonous." So, one should also blame the conservative media for creating an atmosphere in which anyone who dares to speak up against Trump is viciously attacked. Undoubtedly, to many, that is equally treasonous.
Remnick’s self-inflicted wound highlights an increasingly important question: In an era in which virtually everyone has his own soapbox, is it necessary or advisable to share yours with all comers? What would have been gained by having Steve Bannon onstage at the New Yorker Festival? Would a hitherto unnoticed individual and his views gained the deserved attention? Would the audience learn something that they hadn’t known before? Would there likely have been a meeting of the minds in which those at either political pole could might have found common ground? Or, would it simply have resulted in a predictable freak show in which the audience would have shouted down Bannon’s grotestqueries and in which Bannon would have achieved his ultimate aim: making sure his name was spelled right in the flood of ensuing coverage.
I believe that nothing outside of more coverage for Bannon would have been served by his appearing at the New Yorker Festival and that Apatow, Carrey and others were right in their refusal to normalize him by sharing the stage with him. Bannon can rant on through his own media outlets; he doesn’t need the New Yorker.
As for Remnick, he deserves the brickbats being hurled at him for his shortsighted decision to invite Bannon and the ensuing controversy that led to his about-face. The next time he thinks about inviting a troll to the party, he should take a beat to reconsider.
1
This is an absurd take that depends on 1) an elitist fear of the hoi polloi having a say in the public sphere and 2) conflating journalistic objectivity with inviting a racist with no particular occupation or affiliation to a festival celebrating ideas.
Both are completely dishonest ways of engaging with the issue. If someone was successful in pointing out that comparisons to interviews with George Wallace were spurious in the age of Breitbart, so much the better, even if the comparisons were made on Twitter.
Brannon has Fox. He doesn't need nor deserve a platform like The New Yorker. The mistake was inviting him in the first place. I'm glad. they changed their mind.
2
This one seems almost like a no-brainer to me. Remnick apologizes for extending the invitation and then apologizes for withdrawing it. The festival is probably not the place for such a provocative figure to be interviewed and perhaps in the future, as a result of this, the New Yorker will have a clearer sense of what the festival is really about. All that said, if it was dumb to make the invitation in the first place, it was even dumber to withdraw it. Hopefully, lesson learned at the New Yorker.
2
I'm sure, Mr. Stephens, that Bannon will be interviewed by another reputable paper or magazine in the future. Fear not. This is on magazine, one editor, and you are already making pronouncements about Editorial work by Twitter. You have participated on cable news and have brought you considerable influence to the matter of our sitting president and his failings. We are in a crisis and you choose today to write about this twitter thing, as if it is a phenomenon. It is today's way of protresting and not giving succor to those who are evil, as you suggest. The author of the deep state will continue to turn hearts and minds. Would you have given Goerbles the opportunity to expound on his way of looking the world. Today, you joined Mr. Douthat and his failure to look at his "weak President" theory and once again tell himself, that the theory of a "weak president" still works for him and that a dangerous off the rails President, controlled at time by his Republican Congress and by cabinet members and white house aids has managed not to bring harm to the world. My goodness when will people begin to seee what is happening in the WH? And your diatribe against the New Yorker, might have been better spend on the phony supreme court hearing of an old GOP operative who cut his teeth working for Ken Starr. There are bigger fish to fry that going on and on about those standards that you value so much.
Few have mentioned that it's not cheap to buy tickets to the New Yorker Festival - I'm a loyal subscriber and it never seemed worth it to me...$59 or $79!
If people were willing to spend that much to hear Steve Bannon speak, aren't they the fools...?
It's very irritating to have these interviews conflated with the weekly magazine itself...
13
Excellent column, Bret.
The left is less "truth to power" these days than "conformity with friends".
1
Is Mr. Stephens faulting the New Yorker because the dissent was delivered via Twitter?
I have nothing but contempt for most forms of online social media, but for better or worse, that's how people communicate today. Twitter didn't get the white supremacist knocked from the festival, people using Twitter did.
1
To the people saying they would like to have seen the conversation between Bannon and Remnick, would you like to see them debate publicly whether your parents should be murdered on national television? Would you be up for a spirited conversation on whether we can kidnap and torture your children? You're awfully glib with "conversations" and "tough questions" when it doesn't affect you personally. I've seen Trump supporters boo just he mention of the word Hispanic, I don't need a debate as to whether I belong in this country or whether my life is as valuable as a white person's. Even if Bannon was a total trainwreck (and he's far too savvy for that), just having the "debate" furthers the aims and ideas of white supremacists.
Do you really not understand how dehumanizing "This guy wants to wipe out all non-whites, which sounds bad but let's hear him out," is to non-whites? Or do you not care?
2
Oh please.
Stephens writes: "That’s an astonishing statement coming from any journalist who believes that the vocation should largely be about putting tough questions to influential people.."
Here's the thing. Bannon is NOT influential, unless publications like the New Yorker make him so.
He's not a member of the current administration. He's not affiliated with any major organization. He's a freelance gadfly whose opinions are about as relevant as the drunken crank down at the local pub.
Stephens writes that the disinvitation has "kept Bannon's name in the news". Hardly as much as going through with the plan would have.
And he further complains about Schultz's willingness to state her own opinions on social media, "Not long ago... [that] would have been a firing offense."
Yeah, you kids get offa my lawn!
Interviewing Bannon would have provided him with more of the coverage he craves and inflated his importance on the national scene. Disinviting him was the right thing to do, and it doesn't mark a "failure" of journalism.
2
My wife claimed the invitation was just vanity on Remnick's part. Hotshot New Yorker editor will pick Bannon apart to the delight of New York intelligentsia, that kind of thing.
But what's to be gained here? What's there to pick apart? We know Bannon is a far righter, a white supremacist etc. We know he believes government should be nothing more than a military and police authority, a champion of the rich and Commander-in-chief of the 'No' to the struggling masses.
I should imagine that at the New Yorker Festival the audience wants to listen to somebody who has something to say for him or her self, a thinker and an original one at that and an honest broker. How does Bannon fit into that slot?
1
Stop.
The New Yorker Festival is a party. A lot of the guest speakers refused to come to the party if Bannon was invited. You don't have a party if the "pretty guests" aren't going to come. The "festival" is a marketing campaign.
Remnick didn't have much of a choice. It was a business decision.
Remnick has lost has lost all sense of perspective since Trump landed in the White House. Disinviting Bannon to the "festival" certainly isn't the worst decision he's made since Trump's ascendency.
And by the way, The New York Times has also lost its way since Trump became President.
4
Bannon is not an 'opposing viewpoint.' He's an idiot who has already spouted his foul, incoherent nonsense all over the media for years now. If you were running, say, a poetry festival, would you invite someone who had no idea what poetry was just to have an 'opposing viewpoint'? The New Yorker did the right thing by bagging his appearance.
2
“what this really means is that Remnick is no longer the editor of The New Yorker. Twitter is. “
Not so fast Brett. That’s not at all correct. Editors don’t make decisions in a vaccum.
Come on now.
As to Bannon, bring him on, filet and fricassee him at a public venue. I await the denouement.
1
Why are so many Republicans so worried about making sure that the message of white nationalists is given a platform? They seem far more concerned about making sure private entities provide a platform to white supremacists then they are about asking themselves what they are doing that seems to attract white supremacists to their party in the first place.
3
No, "it" hasn't kept Bannon's name in the news, YOU have kept Bannon's name in the news.
In fact it's the people who refuse to entertain the notion that Bannon is worthy of a platform who are acting like adults here. Remnick, like Stephens, just seeks to expedite another column. If more people had just been adult enough to say "no" to Trump instead of lazily relying on the dumpster fire spectacle to mint another worthless news story or instantly forgettable op-ed column, we'd be a better, and yes more adult, country.
1
This is another variation on the First Amendment "does free speech really include Nazis" debate. And it is a false dilemma.
Here is the distinction. In forums like The New Yorker's (and the Times Talks series as well) you are talking about sponsored speech, not the town square.
These events aren't journalism in a different form. They are ticketed events, just like Times Talks. It's not about "free" speech. It's about paid, produced speech. And I see many reasons to not want to share a stage, or a spotlight, with the repugnant, though effective, architect of such a big chunk of the Trump presidency. This as sponsor, co-participant or attendee. Quality of panel enhances or diminishes all participants, but the sponsor especially.
Knowing this, do you want to sponsor Bannon? In a different era, how about Goebbels?
Media sponsored forums are not public events. They are private, just like TED Talks. It's a business decision, and probably the right one.
2
"Don't worry," said Mrs. O'Leary. "The cow's just a little restless in her stall. If we don't pay attention she will just settle down."
The New Yorker should have retained the Bannon interview and used the cover of the magazine to identify all the people who ducked out of the festival in protest. That would have demonstrated true leadership and an possibly helped save Liberals from themselves. I have no idea how Bannon would have done matching wits with Remnick. That doesn't matter. It would have been an opportunity for the two of them and their audience to share ideas and gain perspectives in a way that is essential to the survival of Liberalism. Liberal societies descend into Fascism when people are not allowed to speak and not the other way around. Appatow, Oswalt, Carrey, Twitter and the New Yorker seem to be bringing us closer to Fascism than Bannon ever could.
2
“The news media is a collection of left-wing group thinkers who, if they aren’t quite peddling “fake news,” are mainly interested in advancing only their own truths.” “Aren’t quite peddling,” Mr. Stephens? “[A]dvancing their own agendas?” This is a more subtle but no less damning Trump worldview-supporting attack on the news media.
Why interview past bad guys and not Bannon? Those past bad guys were in power. Bannon was removed from power at the White House, diminishing his ability to spread his democracy-corroding agenda.
Bannon’s previous job helped pave the way for the “fake news” we now see daily in presidential tweets, press briefings, and from congressional Republicans who still want to “lock her up” even though all those investigations have long-since been closed. Bannon’s nationalist agenda, the one that got just enough David Dukes and other ‘deplorables’ out to vote to put an unqualified, undignified, narcissistic loose cannon into the White House, does not need another megaphone. It needs to be consigned to the racist dustbin of history.
1
Well, the Russians know the value of twitter and facebook, i.e. - the digital mob for creating crowd hysteria and influencing peoples opinions! Maybe that's why China censors the internet because it sees what the power of persuasion the digital age and international bots can do to a nation!
With international roaming and freedom of internet comes censorship or everything will just be seen as fake news. Life in the digital world is becoming more complicated as is shown in these htttps links:
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41982569
https://www.motherjones.com/media/2018/08/how-to-identify-russian-bots-t...
1
It's much simpler than all of what Bret and others coitize here:
The editor of the New Yorker made a large mistake in inviting Bannon and requiring his other guests to waste inordinate amounts of time having to respond to Bannon's flame-throwing ideas generally unaccepted by academics.
Their entire "discussion" with Bannon would have been trying to shut the guy up. Not unlike if Trump himself or the idiot Hannity were invited and thusly made it necessary for the others --- that actually know things --- to waste their thoughts and time to deal with the strange, angry, and poorly uneducated child, Bannon.
Remnick thought this would be a good time to drag Bannon over the coals with the help of various intellectuals much more fully educated and astute and aware than the Commando Republican in their midst.
The best analogy would be if the New Yorker had decided to have a discussion with evolutionary biologists and Remnick had decided to include an Evangelical believer insistent that the Earth was created 6000 years ago and that end times were coming.
Remnick made a rookie error, though he is no rookie. It's easy to repair, however. Just invite Bannon to debate some folk that know that their task will be to show how vacuous and dangerous this pretend revolutionary is.
1
It seems that it was not "the mob" who persuaded Remick to cancel the Bannon interview, but the threatened withdrawal of other desirable participants if he did not. They have every right to decide not to share the stage with someone as despicable as Bannon. The New Yorker and its annual festival are under no obligation to give Bannon a forum to spout his poisonous rhetoric. As journalists, they should report on his activities but they certainly don't need to help him find an audience for his racist and nativist propaganda.
3
That Remnick caved to Twitter outrage, Hollywood outrage (good lord), staff outrage, well, how can editorial cowardice be not only the perception but also the reality? So much for journalistic courage. Trump and Bannon must be rubbing their hands in glee and having a good laugh.
To say I'm disappointed in Remnick and the New Yorker is an understatement. I'll remain a subscriber to the magazine, but I'll treat its editorial decisions with less trust.
By the way, it makes no difference whether you are left of center or right of center in this instance. Once the invitation is given, whether it should have been or not, whether it's paid or not, whether it's a "festival" or not, withdrawing it because of such pressure is cowardice no matter how you look at it. To say that Remnick showed courage in canceling the invitation is Orwellian---cowardice is now courage. Mr. Stephens is right: Backpedaling, comfort zones, trigger warnings---the new zeitgeist (though it's not all that new)---has opened the door to the New Yorker, and the magazine has let them in.
1
Not really Bret. If a person doesn't want to appear with another presenter, that is their right. End of issue. I wouldn't want to stand at a subway stop with Bannon. Not surprising others feel similarly.
2
As in the example here, there is an over-democratization of decision making across American society. As with the structure of our government, there's a lot to be said for republican (little "r") governance where powers are delegated to a few people who are vetted for the judgment and capacity.
Just because technology and social media have given most everyone a voice, doesn't necessarily mean they should be heard or that there's value in what everyone has to say. Leaders, please step forward.
2
As a reader for decades of the New Yorker, I am appelled at its disregard of journalistic guts.
2
I agree with those who have drawn a distinction between doing an interview with Steve Bannon on the one hand and inviting him to be a headliner at the New Yorker Festival on the other. These are two completely different things that require a different approach. While it might have been better not to invite Bannon in the first place, I really cannot fault David Remnick for realizing his mistake and rescinding the invitation.
2
"It has corroborated the view that the news media is a collection of left-wing group thinkers who, if they aren’t quite peddling 'fake news,' are mainly interested in advancing only their own truths."
Perhaps Mr. Stephens has a reason for his implication objective truth - non-partisan, verfiable truth - isn't the the goal to which "left-wing group thinkers" ascribe - not their own truths, but everyone's.
Mr. Stephens is right on. David Remnick's tale parallels that of Gayl Wynand, the fictional newspaper publisher of Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead, who mistakenly believes he can mold the opinions of the mob. He sadly comes to learn that he is in fact only subject to the tyranny of the majority, not a shaper of it.
3
We should remember that it was Edward Murrow who took down Senator Joseph McCarthy.
I remember vividly, listening to Terry Gross (sp?) of NPR Fresh Air interviewing Bill O'Riley and the chill of fear at listening to such a popular public figure expose himself as a megalomaniac crazy person.
Both extremes are labeling anyone who associates with "the enemy" as the enemy. If you don't believe in their views debate them point by point!
It would be giving Bannon a public platform if he was allowed to speak without any questioning of his views, as in a commencement address; but that wasn't the case.
Yesterday on a public radio program there was a debate about what should be done about the stagnation or decline of median incomes. Both speakers agreed on the basics; but all the left most leaning speaker could go on about was how his opponent was on FOX "news". We must get past demonizing those with opposing views, listen carefully and use reasoned respectful debate and persuasion. Two wrongs don't make a right.
4
I identify as very liberal and so came to this piece ready to dispute Mr. Stephens' premise. However, the following sentence convinced me that he is absolutely correct in this case:
"If speaking truth to power isn’t the ultimate task of publications such as The New Yorker, they’re on the road to their own left-wing version of 'Fox & Friends.'"
I keep wondering, "Where is this era's Joseph Welch who will convincingly unmask and shame our pretend President and kleptocratic administration?" I fear that, because of social media, no such individual can have that impact.
5
@Bill G. I think we are stuck on how "truth" is established. In fact, I don't think we even agree on what it is to establish something.
1
A lost oportunity to ask 'hardball' questions. A chance to reveal Bannon that he is not smart and woefully ignorant. Above all, lacking compassion for anyone-- including his base he pretends to represent. Bannon should be interviewed relentlessly, incisively for all to see that ' there is no there there'.
3
The flaw in stephens’ argument is that this Twitter ‘mob’ is first a creation of his - -insofar as he’s a conservative (very) and his group’s rhetoric started the fire and fanned the flames of the hate mobs that infest social media. Yes I blame the twitter mob on people like him who’ve 1984’d us by destroying language, meaning, and empathy. To now say one shouldn’t be pressured by this is hypocritical.
3
Personally, I don't know why we need to keep having journalists interview Steve Bannon. What great mystery is there to uncover from his short stint in the White House or his running of a fringe hate-filled "news" website? Sure, sunlight is the best disinfectant, and these views need to be openly challenged, but why not spend time interviewing Stephen Miller, who actually has influence on how these views are being turned into policy?
5
"...they’re on the road to their own left-wing version of “Fox & Friends."
Yup. I've been arguing for the past three years that the "main stream media" has sold its soul to the spirit of Roger Ailes and the problem is far more extensive than this article suggests.
4
I have read The New Yorker magazine all my life, and am a longtime subscriber. I have always been aware that this publication slants mildly to strongly liberal, and am comfortable with that as I read publications that espouse all points of view politically or culturally.
The disinvitation of Steve Bannon by The New Yorker's editor was COWARDLY, IRRESPONSIBLE, and CRAVEN, especially considering that the pressure to drop Bannon from the New Yorker Festival program came NOT from conservatives, but from liberal journalists and celebrities who have been sounding alarms about President Trump's attacks on the press as "the enemy of the people." Well, this time the left-wing press made itself the enemy of contentious, adversarial, forthright dialogue with a public figure who represents the bigotry and nationalism that is threatening the world. Mr. Bannon should have been allowed to state his views and be firmly and closely interrogated by David Remnick or anyone else with a question about Bannon's advocacy for white supremacy. Informing the public is the job of the press, and Remnick chickened out because egotistical celebrities and members of The New Yorker staff (!) demanded that Remnick back down. Meanwhile, the editor of The Economist, the liberal journal based in the UK, is poised to aggressively interview Bannon in a similar program. I hope she gets a good story because a leading American publication is too prissily moralistic to do its job of informing the public.
6
@Dwyer Jones
While you and I and everyone are reading about and discussing this New Yorker controversy, Steve Bannon is in Italy, at the Venice Film Festival, because a film about him -- an extended interview -- is being shown there. Because the film was made by Errol Morris, it will also make its way to Toronto and other significant festival venues before showing up movie theaters across the country. Errol Morris is no pushover, so we can expect the interview to be challenging. Perhaps if it's following standard journalism practices, the Economist will be able to provide a revealing perspective as well. Right now, Bannon is more relevant to the UK, anyhow, given his alliances with Nigel Farage, Marine Le Pen, and some of their fellow European right-wingers. But Bannon isn't at the center of US government anymore, his constituency, if you want to call it that, isn't growing much, and, as has been pointed out by many, his views are far more widely known than their quality merits. The crux of the New Yorker proposal wasn't to do an in-depth article about Bannon or to conduct a serious interview for the magazine. The New Yorker proposed to pay him to headline a promotional event where the magazine's editor and Bannon would spar before an audience, and a relatively small one at that. It was a public relations exercise on both sides. Serious journalism wasn't the point.
1
Bannon’s “ideas” hardly need more exposure let alone The New Yorker imprimatur. Even in the hands of an expert like Remnick, an on-stage interview is quite different than print. As a former journalist I understand (but don’t share) Bret’s discomfort with Twitter and I find his remark that New Yorker staffers’ protest would have once been a “firing offense” more revealing than he probably intends. Don’t question the editor in chief if you want to keep your column.
4
This was not "Twitter editing the New Yorker." It was several speakers and participants *of the event itself* pulling out of the event because they believed that Bannon's presence would legitimize hate and bigotry. Twitter was the merely the medium they used. Five outraged liberal celebrities hardly constitute a "digital mob," and only in conservative doublespeak do reasonable, conscientious objectors to hate become "bullies."
Nonetheless, I agree with Stephens that regardless of the intentions of those who pulled out of the event, this whole mess has only been good for Bannon.
2
In my opinion, I think Remnick interviewing Bannon and doing the interview in front of an audience is quite appropriate. I personally just think the VENUE was not the appropriate one.
2
I’ll take Stephens opioms on jouranalistic integrity and courage seriously when he writes a column comdemning the refusal of right-wing lie factories, Fox, Drudge, Limbaugh, the list goes on, to engage with anyone on the left. Until then, he is just one in a sea of dishonest “ commentators” on the right pushing Republican double standards.
4
@Renee Margolin, so the "right" news lies more than any other? Fox news has creative license to share opinions not to be taken necessarily as facts. What is the excuse the of other outright-lie factories that swear truth?
Perfectly said. Today more than ever, news outlets ought to go back to the basic beauty of journalism. Honest and unbiased questioning that produces the answers that will help us, the readership, become better informed.
2
Wow. Are those commenting that interviewing Bannon was wrong and the subsequent decline on that interview from the New Yorker was the right thing to do aware of their hypocrisy?! In colleges across the country outspoken and often violent protesters have denied speakers from the conservative side of thought, and now the New Yorker and other media outlets answer the call to kill free speech?! All under the guise of 'I don't agree with him, and no one should hear what he has to say?' I don't understand progressives today, but I do know one thing. They are becoming the fascists they claim to despise.
3
@Ma
"... now the New Yorker and other media outlets answer the call to kill free speech."
What are we talking about here? Mr. Bannon is free to say whatever he wants, to anyone he wants. No one has deprived him of the right to free speech.
The extreme right has never accepted non-whites to have rights of any kind. In their view, the "streets belongs to them" and presence of minorities on their hollowed streets is nothing short of their desecration.
Hey-oh. The New Yorker and The New Yorker Festival are two entirely different animals. The columnist (and his editor) know this. The headline "Now Twitter Edits the New Yorker" is therefore misleading. And, I believe, intentionally so.
5
@10034
Nice catch.
Sorry, Bret, but Bannon is a dangerous white nationalist and giving him a platform is not okay. The wrong choice here was Remnick extending the offer in the first place, and he should have been dismissed from his position for showing that poor of judgement in the first place.
4
@Randall: So you want editors and journalists to deliver only your acceptable vision of reality to you, and they should be fired for giving "platforms" to people of whom you disapprove? You sound no better than any thoughtless supporter of Trump. Intolerant people on the right and left are looking like mirror images of one another lately.
1
False equivalence to compare Remnick's dis-inviting Bannon to the New Yorker Festival and the media's condemnation of members of Congress of Congress for refusing to take a stand against the corruptions, lies and distortions of Trump.
Remnick and the New Yorker are running a private event, members of Congress are working on our dime, representing the citizenry, and took and oath to uphold the Constitution.
As a long time New Yorker subscriber I was appalled that Bannon was being afforded a forum by a respectable magazine known for it's dedication to intelligent articles on important topics and people. Bannon is non-entity spewing hate who is attempt to subvert liberalism and progress in favor of fascism and chaos. His junk ideas don't deserve a forum or any publicity.
3
@Sherr29: Adolf Hitler also spewed hate, and was frequently interviewed by journalists from democratic nations seeking to expose his disgusting views to a world not paying close enough attention. Hitler's racialist ideas were the worst history has ever experienced, yet he had to be dealt with.
True journalists don't make judgments about who to interview based on a moral scale, but on amount of news interest represented by a person. If a moral scale was used, almost everyone would fail the test. Do you want to be informed for just smugly moralistic? If the latter, watch your freedoms slip away while you congratulate yourself on your perfectionism.
2
Mr Bannon served seven years in the Navy. He was managing director of Biosphere 2 in Arizona. He was an investment banker at Goldman Sachs. He produced "The Indian Runner", written and directed by Sean Penn. It's obvious from his loathsome and sheltered background that he's simply out of his league with the likes of Mssrs. Apatow and Carrey. Good riddance!
Jim Carrey? We need him? Bannon ... that would be a very interesting and I say this not as a fan in any way. Remnick ... do we need him?
1
@Penn Towers
oh Lordy. Yes, we need Remnick way more than Bannon.
Steve is off hating Pope Francis and supporting Roy Moore and the Hungarian dictator.
Sure, talk to him, but don't pay the guy for drivel you can read for free.
2
I have loved the New Yorker for many decades. One reason is that humor runs through the magazine in so many ways, so I generally assumed the editor and writers were people with a good sense of humor, saw the ironies, displayed wit, and helped us keep our human perspective, especially on the ridiculousness of lots of our political situations (as does the NYT's Gail Collins).
But I am surprised and disappointed Remmick decided to disinvite Bannon from the New Yorker event and interview.
1. On the grounds of hospitality--yes, I know; how quaint--you do not disinvite a "guest." Liberals, of all people, should be modeling civility and decency in the uncivil and indecent era of Trumpism.
2. Did Remmick cave because he/the magazine received outraged correspondence from those embarrassing liberal snowflakes who, like the right, demand "my way or the highway" and "everybody must think and believe what I believe"? Please stand up to the bullies, whether far right or far left.
3. And, I thought it was liberals who are curious people (unlike our dear leader), and who most valued the First Amendment. Meanwhile, I just read some right-wing gun-nut argument that the Second Amendment is THE most important Amendment and "trumps" the First Amendment.
4. It's fundamental: While Kant maintained truth was the cornerstone of the Enlightenment, Voltaire was an eloquent spokesman for tolerance--two values currently under assault by the right, Fox News, Murdoch, and Trumpism.
Courage!
3
It would be more accurate to say that "Twits Now Run The GOP". - Actually, they have for a long time now. Gingrinch, Limbaugh, Bush, Coulter, Bannon, Trump, etc, etc, etc.
4
@Chicago Guy: And now the Twits are running the Democratic Party, or at least its supporters. Bad for everyone. We don't need twits, we need wits.
1
"To suggest that such an event amounts to a confrontation, or offers a perspective on reality, is a bit like suggesting that one "confronts" a wild animal by staring at it through its cage at a zoo."–You, writing about inviting a speaker you didn't like to Columbia University in 2007. Here's a link:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB119067053803537874
3
I sure hope Remmick's decision to disinvite Bannon didn't have anything to do with "concerns" from the Business Office at the New Yorker that interviewing Bannon might damage "the brand" or lead to some loss of revenue from people who only want their view reflected by the New Yorker.
Sounds silly, I guess, but as a faculty member for decades, I increasingly witnessed university administrators cave to the advice/demands of the business/financial office and wealthy pushy alumns who felt "uncomfortable" and "worried" about a university invitation to a "controversial" speaker. And, add in those small groups of true-believer students who gang up on faculty and administrators to do only what these very vocal and aggressive students approve of.
3
I do not like Bannon. I despise what he represents. I am voting a straight Democratic ticket this fall no matter who is on it as an anti-Trump protest.
But I am disappointed in the New Yorker.
The left wing "Twitter Mob" - which doesn't just include Twitter, but many other opinion outlets as well - is on the road to becoming just as illiberal as the far right. Today, Slate tells us that civility in these times "undermines" the rule of law. We are told by the left that anyone who isn't outspokenly political or who dares to maintain cordial family ties and friendships with Trump voters is "privileged" and somehow betraying the "resistance." And the views of the far right - views that are shared, for good or ill, by MILLIONS of Americans - are deemed too dangerous to discuss out loud in polite coastal society, even if that discussion is to publicly challenge those ideas.
Go ahead, liberals. Be uncivil in the name of civil order. Stop talking to your midwestern Dad or your neighbors who voted for Trump. Banish people who work or have worked for the administration from all discussion. Pretend the right wing doesn't exist except as an object of scorn. Banish it from discourse.
It doesn't make it go away. It just continues to empower the right to continue to set up their own separate society, one that spreads all the way from the Delaware River to the Sierra Nevada.
But carry on, "Coastal Elites". Enjoy that View of the World from 9th Avenue while it lasts.
3
@A F
What on earth are you going on about?
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know what Steve Bannon has to say, because he hasn't changed his tune for years! -- and you don't need a "midwestern Dad or neighbors who voted for Trump" (neither of which I have), to know it.
I'd agree with Stephens' last couple of paragraphs, but I see the problem a little differently. To me, Bannon's what they used to call a liminal figure: he's right at the edge between a right-winger whose half-baked jumble of ideas might be worth raking through, and a flat-out fascist who's simply gonna spout crazed, racist drivel.
This one, I can see both ways. It's simultaneously no, you argue with the guy and tell the shouters to siddown and try to come up with something intelligent to say; and yeah, why would the "New Yorker," want to give a creep and a loon a soapbox?
One thing I'm sure about, though: anybody who thinks Bannon's an intellectual needs to finish high school.
5
What can we expect, coming from Kathryn Schulz? As her lazy and poorly written take-down of Thoreau (The New Yorker, 10/19/15) makes evident, she is a blinkered, party-line dogmatist with little sense of historical context. One of Thoreau's (and this country's) great virtues, is his insistence on engaging those with whom he disagrees. This seems lost on Ms. Schulz.
5
Regardless of how abhorrent one might find Bannon's views he is far more relevant than Jim Carey.
5
Mr. Stephens apparently doesn't know the difference between a magazine and a festival. His statement that "Remnick is no longer the editor of The New Yorker" is a false statement - a lie - that he should retract and apologize for. Remnick changed his mind and decided not to pay an honorarium and expenses to bring Bannon to a festival.
4
@mb: I believe Mr. Stephens was speaking about Mr. Remnick's "lost" status as editor ironically.
1
That the NYT or the New Yorker or anyone with an IQ above 50 should scrape the plate of their mind into twitter is the problem. It is the ultimate vehicle of dumbing down.
That foreign leaders twitter back to our Idiot-In-Chief is despicable. That my Literary Agent twitters is enough to make me look elsewhere (but they all do!)
They have destroyed the language in the process. I would suggest that replies to twitter be sent by email if not the post.
1
Only a deplorable person would find a reason to sympathize with Stephen K. Bannon.
7
Maybe this will generate a great New Yorker cover, meanwhile the snow-flacks give Bannon and the lunatic right more ammo as they move to censor. Actually it already has.
4
@The Iconoclast
Just for the record. "Bannon and the lunatic right" got all the ammo they needed when Trump got into the White House.
I don't see why this "festival" is not a journalistic event. It certainly becomes one even if not touted as one. Since when do journalists PAY their interviewees for information? That includes Jim Carrey and all the rest, including Bannon.
2
Bannon is beyond the pale. Why should the NYer lower itself to his level?
3
Bret, if you want to interview Bannon, no one is stopping you. Put it on a blog if NYT won't publish it. But why would you want to do that? He's literally no one except an embarrassing list of "the former" failed whatevers. Giving him a platform isn't brave, it's silly. The Times has spent the last two years interviewing white nationalists. We don't need another wrung out political hack to expound on why denigrating basically everyone but white men is good, actually. You do plenty of that in your own column. Let's just say he's been heard.
2
Censorship from the left is as loathsome as that from the right
5
Well said.
1
the only rational answer here is that paying bannon to appear is an error. otherwise, everything bret says here is absolutely correct. the Left is hopelessly unhinged and pathetic
3
Mr. Stephens whole-heartedly defends a white supremacist, Neo-Nazi Fascist like Steve Bannon, while deriding his opposition as a "digital mob". That's rich. It's also about as degenerate and morally bankrupt as you can get.
When did the NYT's opinion page become the shining defender of unapologetic racists? The day they hired Mr. Stephens, that's when.
Perhaps Mr. Stephens can write an article about how much money the state wastes on the mentally ill?
6
@Chicago Guy: Respectfully, I don't see a defense of Bannon in Mr. Stephens' piece, only a defense of the people's right to know about public figures influencing public policy or attitudes. David Remnick should have been asking Mr. Bannon about his "unapologetic[ally] racist" views.
Why is it a "waste" of state funds to treat the mentally ill?
1
I applaud David Remnick for rescinding the invitation. The denouncements of Bilious Gut Bannon were so damning, and so reasonable, on Twitter and elsewhere, that Remnick was ashamed that he had put the staff and readers through the ordeal of trying to defend the indefensible, and he had the sensible impulse control and disciplined moral compass to examine the situation through the lens of reason, not, like stomach-churning Bannon, with an insatiable appetite for inflaming a pointless fight and igniting revulsion in his own overheated bowels. Any reasonable journalist who engages with someone like Bannon would see his reputation among his peers and colleagues, the people whose appetites need nutrient-rich sustenance in these dark times, would take an uneccessary pummeling. Bannon and his Trumpkin ilk have been stuffing themselves down everyone's craw in a gross and violent fashion for far too long. It is past time for the discerning masses to say no to having to digest his foul garbage and for wishing to protect their own vulnerable guts from vampiric predators like swinish white nationalist Bannon. Stephens is a snowflake for defending the indefensible and not man enough to see that a real man like Remnick can change his mind by following his own gut. Now, that takes guts!
3
@hr: Excuse me, but your contemptuous words seem to echo those of many Trumpists about liberals. Your language is elilist and smarmy in tone (not all Trump supporters are slavering beasts (I know because I have engaged in passionate exchanges with them); assumes that many people share your views (without proof); and asserts that people preaching views that you find distasteful or disgusting should be silenced or ignored. If Bannon is a "swinish white nationalist," then David Remnick blew the opportunity to expose that to the world by hard questioning.
1
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t....but don’t back down from your initial gut reaction. I still trust the New Yorker, and will cut them some slack on this one/continue to subscribe. A hard lesson learned.
3
I attend the New Yorker Festival every year, several times over the weekend. Do you, Bret? Unless you do, I don't think you know what you are talking about. The festival is a lot of fun. It would have been absolutely no fun with a white supremacist as the advertised headliner - especially a has-been white supremacist. Save that for print, or a one-off interview, like Remnick did with Comey at Town Hall on West 44th. But don't buzzkill a festival - again, a festival! - so hard that no one wants to come. I knew immediately that Bannon would ruin the festival, and sure thing, speakers were quickly saying "hell no." I sent my objection to the New Yorker in an email. Does that make me part of a digital mob? If I'd mailed a letter, would that have made it all right with you? Or are we readers and festival goers not allowed to speak?
101
@Jill Anderson
I deplore Bannon but your intervention was unacceptable. My father, John Gunther, a prominent journalist from a bygone era (one many would say was superior to our own, as far as American journalism is concerned), interviewed Hitler. Hitler.
The subsequent publication of that interview earned him a coveted place on Hitler’s death list, the one hundred people to be executed immediately when Britain fell to the Nazis.
Yes, I understand it’s a festival. In this context, the distinction makes no difference. If you want to go to fun parties, hang out with the Kardashians.
And yes, given the weight of what you were asking, the derogation from the fundamental principles of journalism, you should absolutely have taken the time and had the respect for the profession to write a letter. Have it hand-delivered if the timing’s critical to you. It’s precisely the ease, the laziness, of an email that makes it a mob, of which you were indubitably a part.
Finally, of course you have the right to speak, just like Bannon does, along with, for that matter, the various odious types of supremacists currently on display. But you also have the right, the obligation and, I would suggest, the honour, to bear the consequences of that speech, from which the right to free speech in no way immunizes you.
Your actions were a disgrace to the fine tradition of American journalism. That you are far from alone in the decline of journalism and public debate is, of course, no defense.
3
@Jill Anderson
You make an excellent point about Bannon having the potential to harm the "vibe" of the festival. Studio 54 had a velvet rope too, used to maintain the right atmosphere and the right mix of people.
On the other hand, Bannon has been given interviews by New York magazine, CBS, and MSNBC and the world has not gone up in flames as a result. Bannon has been tarred as an anti-Semite, and you tar him as a "white supremacist." Where exactly is the evidence for this?
1
@NLG I'm a lawyer with an undergraduate degree in journalism and come from a family of journalists, and I respectfully disagree. Again, a one-off interview at Town Hall on West 43rd, or something similar, is the place for this. There is a time and a place for everything.
Depicting the blowback against Mr. Bannon as a social media revolt is disingenuous. The pressure came from high-profile speakers and the New Yorker's staff. Twitter is among the least-used social media platforms among American adults per Pew polling data, so is far from representative of public opinion.
Mr. Stephens needs to look no further than his position as a columnist to see the weakness of his argument. "Progressive bullying" on social media did not run him out of his job. The elite press retained him because the social group that controls it decided to keep him around over the objections of people on Twitter. Privilege matters.
As is apparent by the half-retreat by Mr. Remnick, Mr. Bannon will still receive the elite media attention that is required to appease "conservatives," who will not be swayed by anything less than total capitulation in all cases anyway. These far-right charlatans and villains seem to require the approval of the media establishment to feel like their wretched philosophies are not mere illiberal barbarism.
Mr. Stephens should know better.
2
Shouldn't conflate the magazine with its "festival". I believe the magazine has done pieces on Bannon. I'm afraid I view this as much ado about nothing. I'm not sure what motivates Mr. Stephens's barbs about the echo chamber and groupthink -- rejected pieces for the magazine or his own resonant cavern?
2
Remnick changed his mind. That's it. The outcry most likely embarrassed him. He hadn't realized, from his position of privilege and remove, what's actually at stake here. People's lives are at stake. Children have been permanently harmed by family separation. Heather Heyer is dead.
Remnick is correct in thinking that a New Yorker profile of Bannon would be less problematic than putting him on stage. I'm glad he changed his mind, and he is free to do so. I am free to say something about it on Twitter or here or anywhere else. That's as it should be. If you think you can convince people to refrain from speaking up, you're mistaken.
1
The same main point is missed here, and is always missed, when people cry of censorship and crushing free speech, which is this: There are ideas and topics that need debating, but usually the person who is allegedly being censored is not a legitimate person to be debating them. Bannon is beyond the pale. If there are legitimate positions behind anything he says, then a reasonable, honest, intelligent person is out there who can discuss those. Bannon is a character who does not exist for reasonable debate of serious issues. He is an appalling human being who is pushing an appalling agenda. Find someone with integrity and of good will to discuss / debate. Furthermore, there are in fact things that do not deserve an airing. Who wants to host a debate on the merits of slavery, pro and con. No, George Wallace does not need to be presented as presenting legitimate views when he espouses racist ideology. So, no, it was a mistake to invite Bannon. Invite someone who can present views that differ from your own, but don't invite a horror show of a human.
1
@Patrick Bradley: In a democracy, no person and no subject should be "beyond the pale." Birth control information, access to safe and legal abortion, black and female voting rights, certain literary works, etc. where all once considered beyond the pale. Many Americans know much more about serial killers than about their legislators' actions.
Bannon was to be interrogated about his views, not celebrated. I am growing sick of self-appointed censors from the left and right who want to stop thinkers like me from making up our own minds. We do NOT need your protection, thank you.
1
@Patrick Bradley, does he claim those views? What's his agenda? I ask because I can't find legitimate sources to say that. Thanks.
1
The initial mistake was to invite (and offer to pay! really??) Bannon to “debate” when thoughtful debate is not his medium of choice. Buckley he is not, and I’m no fan of Buckley. Having made that mistake, however, disinviting a controversial figure when controversy erupts is an order of magnitude more foolish. At best it shows astonishingly poor forethought; at worst it delegitimizes the New Yorker, while elevating Bannon’s profile. (It seems hard to imagine that Bannon’s “legitimacy,” such as it is, would be impacted one way or another by an appearance at a New Yorker festival). The New Yorker invited a disruptor and then helped him to disrupt — an all-too-familiar own-goal in these fearful times.
@jennefer So, so true. Own-goal is the perfect description.
Totally agree. What an abrogation of journalistic responsibility and what an opening for right-wing critics of Remnick and the New Yorker. I'm profoundly disappointed.
4
This is the first column of Mr. Stevens I completely agree with. Well wrote and too true.
2
Free speech is a passe' idea among the Left in the United States. A group that lives for political correctness and sees micro aggressions at every turn is antithetical to a free exchange of ideas. God save the republic should the Democrats get the opportunity to impose speech codes on the citizenry.
1
I'm no fan of Bannon ... but the guy has contributed a lot more to our current national discourse (if you can even call it a "discourse") than Judd Apatow or Jim Carrey ever has.
It's sad that the New Yorker is losing its credibility in an age when so many American institutions are falling apart. But maybe that's a good thing? Maybe it's a lesson to all of us to dig a little deeper and not rely on liberal or conservative elitists to dictate what we should all be talking about?
2
David Remnick made a mistake. Giving a platform at a prestigious magazine to a man like Bannon outraged New Yorker staff, other attendees and long-time subscribers like myself.
Unlike the President who believes he's infallible, Remnick then fixed the mistake. It is not an act of cowardice, but maturity.
For conservatives who have committed themselves to lying, hypocrisy and stonewalling to complain is rich indeed.
1
Thank you, Bret Stephens. I for one had looked forward to Remnick's putting a match to Bannon's toes. From what I have seen and heard of and from Bannon, his ideology is an amalgam of sorts of once-used, now-tossed themes whose erstwhile far-right promoters would like to remind everyone should be classified as "truths," not truisms. Remnick, I had thought, would be just the man to bat those thoughts down just as he would knock Bannon back, showing other right-wing ideologues the jelly on which their foundational hypotheses are built. But it will not be. This time, anyway. That's too bad.
Thank you all the same, Tom Claire
3
The 'digital mob' is certainly a problem, and is degrading the quality of the public dialogue, as far as there was ever much quality to it.
However, so much of the current conservative media world and their 'intellectuals' now operate in bad faith, that the free 'competition of ideas' model really isn't workable in all cases. I wish that Bannon had never been invited, because white supremacy and misogyny should be beyond the pale and should lead to intellectual ostracism. Having been invited, I think the twitter outcry and the New Yorker's reaction have only played into his hands.
3
The irony of a Republican author (whose party leader tries to rule through Twitter) calling out an editor for rethinking a decision, because of a reaction on Twitter, seems to have been lost on Stephens. A lot seems to have been lost on Stephens.
3
@Jason, maybe he is being like the left, and just doesn't care.
I don’t agree with Mr Stephens politics, but I agree with him here.
75
Ditto to Cathy Anderson's comment. Silos and group-think are what the free press and good journalism is supposed to combat. Not interviewing and countering Bannon in such a format doesn't make him go away; he and his ilk are still out there. A public argument with him, made cogently and forcefully and convincingly, would have been much better ...
2
@Cathy Andersen, a times pick. It's to the point.
1
The digital mob didn't push Remnick to the rescind the offer. The many famous names who pulled out of the festival did. A Twitter mob--unlikely to be potential ticket buyers to the event--could have been ignored. But you can't hold the festival without your subjects. The fact that they announced their withdrawals via Twitter is pretty besides the point.
2
I am unhappy they rescinded the invitation. People will choose to listen to him or not. Disinviting him because of his views, which, let's face it, have a lot of traction in the USA, is a disservice to festival goers looking for speakers outside their comfort zone.
2
A lost opportunity and another indication of the narrow minded tribalism that has engulfed both extremes of the political spectrum.
Whatever one may think of Steve Bannon, he is incredibly intelligent and well read. An intellectual joust in front of a live audience would have been electrifying and educational for all. The extreme left and right have become opposite sides of the same close minded coin.
4
"Incredibly intelligent." Oh, please.
2
I largely agree with your column, Brett, but would offer another thought, two actually. One is that Mr. Remnick is not exactly the most aggressive interviewer, so I'm not entirely sure we would have gotten the confrontation you, and I, would have hoped. Two is darker - today, celebrity seems to often count more than substance. The fact that he was being interviewed by the editor as a "headliner" for many in our current society counts more than what is said. I have 7th and 8th grade students who think Kim Jong-Un is "not so bad" simply because he was portrayed in a somewhat sympathetic way in Seth Rogan's "The Interview" and a main character. The same may be said of Trump, who is largely famous for being famous. Perhaps we are in a different world, with different rules, where coverage begins equal support and cannot be differentiated by a vast portion of the population. Just a thought.
3
Excellent points! Why has so much liberal opinion given way to "group think"? It hasn't; it has submitted only to prohibited expression, and "group talk". We need to learn again to become a bit outrageous ourselves, and entirely stop the requirement for "political correctness", or the world will stop listening.
2
If we want to have a truly open dialogue, it is much more productive to have people with opposing viewpoints. The fact that some of those speakers may be articulate is no reason to exclude them. Otherwise, it appears that a group
of elitists are protecting others from "bad" ideas and the event is nothing more than a mutual admiration society meeting or pep rally.
3
Could not DISAGREE more. This is a public event, where people are paying, $59.00 a ticket. If there is a resounding rejection, which insures the collapse of the entire program, what do you expect the magazine to do. People today vote with their pocket books. You live in an ivory power, Sir.
3
Some other points: The New Yorker Magazine and its Festival are two different things and Mr. Stephens conflates them.
I do think people were responding to Remnick writing Bannon and saying that he would be "honored" to host him and pay him and his travel expenses.
Remnick did say that he has wanted to interview Bannon for a long time and would do so. It aint over til its over.
4
As a long-time reader of the New Yorker, I believe it's much more important to hear what the odious Steve Bannon says than listening to the inane chitchat of a Judd Apatow or a Jim Carrey. If Mr. Remnick's guests and staff writers want to sit around and breathe their own exhaust, let them do it somewhere else.
3
It would have been far more informative to watch The New Yorker eviscerate Steve Bannon, I could care less what Judd Apatow and Jim Carrey have to say.
This was a missed opportunity Mr. Reminck, you could still change your mind, and tell Judd and Jim to take their marbles and go home.
You should then demand that Kathryn Schulz engage in the interview, what is she afraid of? Or maybe she should just go home too.
5
This liberal white male would've loved to see Bannon grilled by Mr. Remnick. Shame on Schulz, Apatow, Carrey, et al for resorting to the same bullying tactics employed by today's Trumpublicans -- and worse, shame on them for fueling conservative criticisms of the fourth estate.
8
those who protested and withdrew, or threatened to, from the NYer Festival did not want to tarnish their reputations by appearing as second bananas on same bill as headliner Bannon. the fact that Bannon is so odious only makes him tougher competition for people closer to normal.
it strikes me that rather than serios thinkers, or actors on today's political stage, they are ALL egomaniacs intent on building a personal brand which they can then dine out on for the rest of their lives.
but Jim Carey does make great faces.
1
All these complaints about The New Yorker editor handing the reins to a digital mob on Twitter, when this president has handed the entire country over doing the exact same thing.
Hate speech is not free speech.
And there's no reason to think that Steve Bannon is going to say anything new or different from the racist and isolationist diatribe he's been peddling all along...and to think, Americans really want to hear more of that?
That's not going to make America great again -- if anything, it'll do just the opposite.
6
@N. Smith
Are all conservative opinions hate speech? If so, we will have little to discuss about the issues facing our country.
3
@JAM
There's no way to deny that Steve Bannon, like Donald Trump have some views that are not only hateful, but racist -- and this country had best start to face up to it...FAST!
Brett: Are you or anyone else really surprised that the liberal left believes in censoring free speech that it does not agree with? Even Fox News regularly interviews left wing pundits who will consent to be interviewed. Why is the left afraid to give someone like Bannon the opportunity to speak in public? If Bannon is so evil & wrong, why pass up the opportunity to expose the illogic & bigotry of his opinions? We are never going to be able to negotiate with one another for the good of the country if we insist on restricting the speech of those with whom we disagree.
4
@JAM: Straw man argument. The "liberal left" is not censoring Bannon's speech. Bannon is free to express his opinions. I don't agree with Bannon's being uninvited after having been invited (although I don't think he should have been invited in the first place), but that is not the same as censoring him.
2
Yeah, I've seen a few of those lovely FOX interviews. Unless they're on Sunday morning with actual journalists, they all boil down to opportunities for the shabby likes of Tucker Carlson to shout, snigger, and mug for the camera.
2
And progressives and liberals wonder why the right treats you like toddlers whose ice cream just fell off their cone. If you don't like hearing views you don't like, then maybe you shouldn't be expressing views that others don't like. A free press doesn't mean your type of press only.
Amazing to see that a corporation like Nike shows more courage than Remnick, Schultz, NFL owners, and our Twitter-In- Chief.
3
@NSTAN3500
Well they did say Nike got 43 million dollars worth of free media world wide.
not to be cynical but Nike is probably better positioned than a writer's festival to take a $$$ hit.
1
Speaking as a lib'rul, lefty and progressive, a) I'm ambiguous on this issue, and b) the Right acts the way they act because they're a clot of idiots and bullies who figure a nice mix of shout, threat, bully, condescension, and psychobabble will get them what they want.
1
A sit-down staff interview for the magazine, yes; a paid honorarium at the New Yorker Festival, Nope.
146
@LMT I worked for someone who spoke at the NYer festival last year. Speakers aren't paid. Airfare and hotel is covered though. Does that change your position at all? Probably not, but it does show how quickly we jump to conclusions
1
I'm disappointed in Mr. Remnick's decision and in those who've called for Mr. Bannon's removal from the program. In my opinion, Mr. Remnick has caved in to the notion that the proposed interview is primarily a type of publicity, and all publicity is good for the publicity seeker. This dictates that we liberals must deprive Mr. Bannon - who spouts bigoted, self-serving ideas wherever he goes - of this platform.
Our lives on the Internet are increasingly blurring the distinction between publicity (such as mentions, images, and mouse clicks) and news (including debate and analysis). As a result, people condemn all engagement with opponents of their own views as "giving a platform" to the opponents.
I think we should welcome serious efforts to confront people with views we oppose. If you can hear what Mr. Bannon says without getting sucked in, others can, too.
4
Mr.Stephens argues for a return to a sort of fairness doctrine where every loud mouth dispensing garbage has the right to be heard on the most prestigious media platforms. I for one do not read the New Yorker to enrich my knowledge of fascism.
Let Bannon spew his venom elsewhere.
5
What about the way Fox News hands the keys to President Meangirl?
What about that?
Get a good grip on those pearls, Mr. Stephens. You'll need them.
5
I suspect all the "what's so bad about a debate of ideas" takes are coming from white people. It's easy to take such a stance when the speaker in question is not calling for your people to be cleansed from the country.
8
I am an unapologetic liberal. I think being liberal means listening to and considering contrasting views from every direction. It certainly means accepting that diverse voices have a right and a reason to speak. It's true that The New Yorker is a private enterprise not bound by strictures of free speech. Still, the magazine has just proved, if there was any doubt, that it is not liberal. Please don't refer to this kind of oppressive behavior as coming from liberals.
5
Could you have Roxanne Gay write about this as well?
6
I actually thought "hands the reigns of the New Yorker" to a "twitter mob" meant that. But no. Seriously, can republicans communicate at all anymore without hyperbolic arm-waving falsehoods?
5
Instant online mob outrage regardless from which side of the political spectrum is coming from is wearing thin our political center and divides us further. For us, the people in the center, this feels a bit like being in the middle of a rope bridge spanning a chasm, while one extreme is using machetes on one end and the the other extreme is torching the opposite end.
3
I think it’s amusing that liberals feel the need to provide platforms for the likes of Bannon, Wm. Kristol, while right-wingers never do the reverse. It’s akin to liberal Presidents appointing Republicans to Treasury, Defense, FBI etc. , while the GOP would never appoint Dems. Does anyone think conservatives will bend over backwards to praise and eulogize Obama some day. He tried bi-partisanship. Dems are pathetic far too often.
The are arguments for and against the New Yorker inviting Bannon. I can see some value in giving him a hard time, but he is not going to change his views because he only can get an audience for the ones he has. I can see some “know your enemy” value if he isn’t already well understood.
4
To be fair to Remnick, It wasn't only Twitter and New Yorker staff that forced his hand. Important speakers were cancelling and it was almost surely too late to replace them. If Remnick had stood firm, it is very possible that the Bannen interview would be the only important event in the Festival.
5
Remnick should not have withdrawn his invitation to Bannon. His questions to Bannon likely would have put him on the spot, for once. We the public needed to hear this conversation. Too bad.
2
Nope. Sorry. It is not "censorship" to not PAY a known racist to speak at your event. I subscribe to The New Yorker and I pay a significant amount for the publication. I also attend festival events and I simply won't, if that's the case.
We are in dangerous times and it says a lot that two middle-aged white men don't understand why this decision was such a terrible one.
5
Remnick made the wrong decision inviting Bannon in the first place. Bannon's destructive, extremist, racist views are well known and do not need to be rehashed and/or further legitimized in a live public forum by the NYer. He has plenty of other public spaces to put forth his vile snake oil view point. As for Twitter being the arbiter? Unlikely. A significant number of speakers who were much more interesting to the public had justifiably cancelled their invitations because of the inclusion of Bannon in the roster. The prince of darkness, whose goal is to deny free speech to the rest of us, has no place at a festival celebrating the free exchange of ideas.
3
I am of two minds on this. On the one side is the support of open and free debate. On the other is giving publicity to abhorrent ideas that are undeserving of mass dissemination. And notably, the venue was a festival. Many who raised objection would be supportive of the New Yorker interviewing Bannon in pubic in a less complicated context.
I recall when Condoleezza Rice was invited to speak at a Rutgers University convocation, and that this was withdrawn after protest. I agreed with this action. I felt it was wrong to bestow this honor upon her, along with being paid a hefty honorarium. Alternatively, I would be perfectly OK with her being invited to lecture at the university.
I think the two scenarios share similarities.
3
Why should anyone be surprised? Journalists are now ranked lower than politicians when it comes to trust. By lacking any level of convictions, the folks at The New Yorker will continue to be pushed around by social media
3
I think a more interesting question is why was he chosen in the first place. Is hard for me to understand what Mr. Remmick was thinking. Based on the rather empty nature of his response, I have a feeling not much. Why do we need to hear more from Steve Bannon?
4
Not social media, the other attendees presumably had sufficient influece to change Remnick's mind. Just because those attendees happened to find out that Bannon was invited and Twitter was available as a means of voicing opinion does not mean Twitter is to blame. What happened is that Twitter is a very effective way of disseminating information and thanks to social media everyone attending the meet caught a wiff of Bannon's planned attendance. Besides, Remnick could still interview Bannon. Invite him to participate in a separate event to voice the opinion of the radical American right, give him the whole stage.
1
I thought conservatives believed in letting the market decide. That's what happened here. As popular big name guests declared that they would not participate if Bannon appeared and some New Yorker readers announced they wouldn't attend the festival, while others canceled their subscriptions, the writing was on the wall. The festival is a cash cow for the NYer (I've never attended b/c tix are too expensive) and the bottom line was threatened at the same that this ancillary project was tarnishing the magazine's rep in the minds of some readers. I admire Mr. Remnick, and believe he intended to ask tough questions but this was a mistake. This kind of public interview is entertainment, not journalism, and offering this platform to Bannon raises his profile and gives him a stamp of legitimacy he doesn't deserve.
5
Exactly right! “Liberals” are terrible strategists in the real world because they fall for empty gestures, which is a definition of Twitter. Like Bernie Sanders’ doomed campaign and pique that encouraged voters to sit out the vote in protest—that helped elect Trump.
3
I watched Charlie Rose interview Steve Bannon (before the revelations about Mr. Rose, of course.) I figured I could stomach that interview because there wouldn't be any softball questions. Mr. Rose was at his interviewing best; Mr. Bannon was about as poor an interviewee as I'd ever seen. He never addressed the question actually asked. There was no conversation, just a madman who couldn't or wouldn't stay on topic. Mr. Rose continually had to say something like, "you didn't answer the question." Then, he would drag Bannon's behind back to the topic, whereupon, Bannon would again talk about something else entirely. The whole thing was strange and pointless.
Why anybody who's ever watched an interview with Mr. Bannon would invite him to debate or be interviewed anywhere is just beyond me. He's going to bring his soapbox, stand on it, and rant. He's not going to engage in a conversation.
So, I don't understand. Do interviewers see him as some sort of challenge? Are they trying to win a contest--who will be the first to actually get an answer out of him? Does Mr. Remnick think he could do a better job than Charlie Rose?
And now, we have to sit for another lecture from Mr. Stephens about how the left can dish it out but can't take it. All of this could have been easily avoided if Mr. Remnick had just one ounce of common sense.
6
If other speakers refused to attend, if Bannon would be there, then what would be the choice? Cancel the event? I don't think so. There are some points of view that don't deserve a forum and are not valid, nor respectable.
5
Can you imagine how members of the Fedralist Society would have reacted to Rob Reiner (or Colin Kaepernick) being invited to speak to them?I can.
3
Is it Twitter that's running The New Yorker now, or the celebrity-industrial complex? Sounds to me that they were more upset about having a complicated public event come unravelled (Apatow et al walking) than whatever anyone--including their contributors--mouthed off about on social media.
3
Also, one can reflect and say, "I made a mistake." Or "I changed my mind for good reasons." And: "I can correct it or try to compensate for it."
1
I am a long time subscriber to The New Yorker and grew up looking at the cartoons in my parents' copies. I was shocked and disappointed to see the headline yesterday that they had withdrawn the invitation. Steve Bannon is a loathsome individual but he is also an important part of this chapter of history that is being written every day. The kind of thing that the New Yorker Festival should be highlighting. Shame on the New Yorker for kowtowing to celebrities like Jim Carrey. Steve Bannon won this one unfortunately.
151
@Matt
Spot on, Matt and Mr. Stephens!
I am a longtime subscriber to the New Yorker and I look to that publication for expansive exploration of current issues and vigorous informed debate. I find Mr Bannon and all he represents to be utterly despicable. He is nonetheless a relevant voice in today's political and social environment and as such deserves a seat at the table, if only to grant others the opportunity to re-demonstrate the monstrosity that he is.
Missed opportunity, New Yorker.
3
Take a hike, Stephens. I'm a long time New Yorker subscriber, and I don't want them interview in that crack pot at all, unless they're planning on excoriating and exposing him as the crack pot that he is. Digital mob my foot. What does that even mean, digital mob? it is the came kind of meaningless, inflammatory boiler plate garbage served up by the right everyday. The very fact that they are interviewing him is a surrender to the mob and the clan of misinformation. Being a crack pot is one thing, being a dangerous crack pot is altogether another. You are exposing yourself Stephens. Your cloak is coming off.
4
The young leftists, masquerading as liberal journalists, don't realized that there always are three sides to an issue: my side; your side and the right side.
A healthy skepticism about one's own hallowed viewpoints may lead seekers to greater clarity.
3
Bret still using false equivalencies. His latest: "... The New Yorker ... on the road to their own left-wing version of 'Fox & Friends'". When the New Yorker starts to promote racism, hate of the other and white supremacy, then, and only then, Bret, can you make that statement. The New Yorker decided not to give a white supremacist any legitimacy though association, and that is a good thing! One day Bret may come to understand that there is good and bad that transcends opinion. But as time goes by it seems less likely.
2
@tbs, ok, so now fox has white supremacists on the station?
Excellent opinion piece shining the light on Liberal bullies.
5
The concern is that Bannon would ‘play’ the opportunity an interview would offer him.
After all, he was the man who was able to connect every angry male racist on the planet through his social media savvy and expertise in internet gaming and set the conditions for the destruction of decades of trade pacts, treaties and diplomacy as well as Trump.
Bannon is political/social dynamite of the most dangerous kind and fooled the liberal press before.
1
OMG!!! I agree with Brett Stephens. It must be the end of days.
3
Folks, let's not miss the point. It's not about what you think of Bannon or whether or not he should have been invited in the first place.
The point is that the editor made an editorial decision for his publication because, you know, he's the editor. And he backed down. That's the bigger problem for fair minded journalism.
5
Bannon should not have been invited. But once he was invited and had accepted the invitation, he should not have been kicked out of the forum. This was a spineless decision by the New Yorker.
3
Wait, we had a chance to put Bannon on stage and call him a racist and a liar--and we chickened out on it? Lame move. We shouldn't let twitter-storms decide things any more than we should believe the president's tweets.
3
@Nate Lunceford--We already know Bannon is a racist and a liar. No one needs to put him on a stage to prove that's true.
3
Always been fervently pro free speech. But considering the fate of the Weimar Republic and the recently increased popularity of fascism in the US and the EU, I remind myself that the Constitution is not a suicide pact.
5
@JMcF, the one that has been there and building for
Mr. Stephen's article is discussing something that is important, mob and/or elitist censorship. It is not just speakers like Bannon but also those like Ann Coulter, who certainly cannot be called a racist, who pulled out of a speech at UC Berkeley because of students’ objections. The Kavanaugh confirmation hearing yesterday began in chaos with yelling and heckling and democrats saying the meeting should be stopped. In other words, don't let Kavanaugh be heard. When is the last time conservative stop the speech of someone from the far left? Mr. Stevens is correct that the New Yorker kept Bannon in the spotlight. Here he is central to a NYT's Opinion. If the New Yorker interview had taken place, Bannon would have had a short time flashlight on him, but then pushed aside by the next interview. What would have happened if no one came to Charlottesville or at another rally a short time later that thousand protesters were there. In the fifties and sixties George Lincoln Rockwell founded and headed the National Nazi Party. If you look at some his followers carrying their hate signs, they are seen alone or just a couple of people curious as to what was going on while others walked by going about their own business. In the end, he was assassinated by one of his own followers. No matter what the beliefs are, all have the right to free speech and assembly. But take the spotlight away, they are like a tree falling in the forest with no one to hear them.
3
Well, there we go again. The argument about not giving him a platform VS. the argument about free speech or something like it. Neat.
1
We must, MUST start deciding just what the words "liberal" and "conservative" truly mean. It may be an impossible task, but it is one worth considering.
As I have not seen Steve Bannon being interviewed I have two views o this one. If he conducts himself as so many conservatives do in interviews by talking over, ignoring or continuous what about ism, it would not be an interview but a platform for unchallenged lies and rhetoric. So what would be the point? But if he has shown a willingness to answer question about his political views, then he should be interviewed. I have gotten exceedingly tired of conservatives shouting down honest conversation, even as I know that conversation is sorely needed in today’s divided political climate.
1
Americans have notoriously confused politics, sports, and religion--and then hybridized this maelstrom with entertainment and pop culture. Inhabitants of the Twitterverse have succeeded in blurring real and virtual existence. This latest dustup at the New Yorker demonstrates further (d)evolution of what passes for intellectual discourse in the 21st century, though the prominence of figures like Jim Carey certainly challenges the intellectual label.
The New Yorker, as a private enterprise, is certainly free to interview who they choose and write what they want, in pursuit of their desired audience. Of course, they are free to turn their publication into a pretentious version of People magazine in the process.
3
I disagree with the statement "nationalist, illiberal politics...are sweeping the globe". Yes, there have been some political successes, but most of the success has been a minority opinion getting overblown press coverage, such that their support looks bigger than it is. (Don't forget that Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million votes.) Remnick made a mistake by inviting Bannon. It was painful, and maybe even politically counterproductive to rescind the invitation, but it was the right thing to do.
2
Thanks Bred, - I do not agree with much of what you write (although I find most of it worth thinking about), but this time to hit the nail on the head.
And plaudits to the NYT for giving you a voice!
2
Liberals freak out because a journalist was going to interview Steve Bannon. Meanwhile, conservatives are burning their sneakers because Nike featured Colin Kaepernick in an ad. Maybe we are all snowflakes.
221
Oh, c'mon. Name me two liberals you know IRL who are "freaking out." Teevee talking heads, or Hannity's hallucinations, don't count.
2
@Richard Brown, your comment is a combo plate of either hubris, ridiculousness or both? Liberals, me being one, despise racists and so should you. We, people of any melanin color, live our whole lives suffering from the insanity in the minds, hearts,
and the words, and the ”deeds” that white racists inflict on every Non-White American. Most Liberals are not promoting or hosting avowed racists like Steve Bannon, nor do we go on the mass media to suggest anything anywhere near similar to the depraved mind of Bannon onto our fellow white Americans.
He is vile!
As for Conservatives burning their expensive Nike sneakers, socks/apparel, that too is pedestrian hubris along with racist sympathizing in my senior year's lived experience opinion. Those folks may as well burned the cash alone in their delusional protest since now they have nothing. So no Nike sneakers, plus their dollars have also gone up in smoke. Hate Smoke!
Sad, sad, sad! #45 has released the ”The Kraken” from their numerous cocoons.
@Richard Brown cant compare denying a company one's money, if that company supports some idiot who likes to disrespect the country on a regular basis, to "journalists" refusing to engage someone in a debate.
1
Imagine a panel discussion of intellectuals on a stage discussing issues of some importance and one of those paid to attend is
(for arguements sake) a Nazi. Some questions arise the first is the Nazi’s first amendment rights of free speech which the Nazi opposes, except for other Nazis. Yet there is no right to exercise that right in a private forum for money.
There is, however the right of freedom of association and the other invited panelists have the right to refuse to interact, argue with and listen to a Nazi when their participation is voluntary.
Then of course with a Nazi present on the stage discussion it will be the others against the Nazi or vis-versa, which makes for a political brawl which is not what the audience will be paying to see.
Imagine this situation: Six people asked to meet at a fancy restaurant for a wonderful dinner and a large round table is set up to receive them. The first to arive had stepped in a pile of dog doo and refuses to wipe his feet and as the other guests arive they are over powered by the stench. So do the others sit down and ask for the menu or find another table?
No matter matter how you look at it, what has to end is treating the enemies of America, its values and its democracy as anything else than what they are, unAmerican traitors and you do not treat them as equals or legitimate. These are the people we fought WW2 to defeat. We cut out that cancer but now it is growing again. Surgery begins on election day.
4
@Sheldon Bunin, if you use such serious words and claims so hyperbolically please have some proof.
Let's give Mr. Remnick a break.
5
If there was no Twitter and Mr. Remnick still withdrew his invitation, what would your argument be? Like Alex What's-his-name and his InfoToys and Facebook, the New Yorker is a private organization and can not suppress free speech through censorship. They can do whatever they wish via editorialization.
Deplorable idiots like Bannon and his ilk should be marginalized, ostracized and ignored at every instance. There's no debate here.
7
@Positively, yes, there's a debate or you would not weigh in.
Bannon has no place in any civilized discourse on any subject matter. None. The new Yorker was wrong to invite him, and corrected itself. Despite your nonsensical piece, the new Yorker remains a venerated magazine.
8
No need to invite the incitor and liar, don’t we know his story. No one is going to convince me to go to see a kkk rally either. There is no dialog anymore. No one is going to convince anyone on either side at this point, it’s just who has more voters.
2
Let's get down to brass tacks.
As Mr. Stephens shows, promoting, defending, or making racists and xenophobes relatable, isn't really in the skill set of The New Yorker. Look at the incompetent mess they made of it.
And the NYT does such a better job.
Stay in your own lane, Mr. Remnick!
This is a job for the op-ed page!
2
For shame, David Remnick.
5
Twitter edits the New Yorker? Please point out a single article, a single sentence, that has been altered by the "digital mob." This was an event, an open mic for a racist/fascist liar, uncontrollable despite Remnick's skill. It was not journalism.
2
I usually think you are a complete apologist for republican depredations and you definitely are guilty of making false equivalencies but in this instance you nail it. Canceling Bannon (hardly a fringe figure) just makes liberals looks like "snowflakes."
1
Just as I refuse to listen to Trump speak, because I know what will come out of his mouth will be stupid, vulgar, mean spirited, psychotic (take your pick), I already know the same will come from the mouth of Steve Bannon.
Readers don't want it; don't care about his idiotic opinions. First and foremost a publication owes to its readers a duty not to offend them.
Why print something you know won't be read?
It's not the lack of "bravery" here. It's the lack of common sense in the first place. By Stephens' reasoning, it would have been fine to give Goering or Hitler a platform to enhance the argument for annihilating the Jews.
5
Ouch. Also: right on.
2
Maybe liberaldom is now just like conservatism -- totally divorced from intellectual culture. When the the leadership of such an august periodical is taking direction from manchild sketch comics pitching fits on this year's myspace, I guess I have to consider that this great tradition is dead in the dirt.
4
Other than people announcing their views on a decision on Twitter this has nothing to do with Twitter and everything to do with finding Bannons views and actions unsavory enough that they would rather not to share a stage with them. If they'd written them on print, would Stephens blame typewriters or news stands? When one asks a public figure to share a stage and billing, one uses their fame and public standing and also shapes it and even impugns it. Politicians and celebrities know this well, so it seems reasonable that these folks didn't want the shape of Bannon on their reputations.
I am conflicted about this whole situation. On the one hand, I was angry that Bannon was invited because of his views and because I don't understand why anyone thinks he is still relevant. Then I became angry when I learned he was dropped from the program because of the protests over his upcoming appearance. It seems that at least some of the liberal media is just as guilty as right-leaning news outlets for preaching to the choir.
5
Sad day for Free Speech. I would have expected more from both Remnick AND Jim Carrey and Judd Apatow. When it comes to combatting foul ideas and ideologies you cannot just look away...Germany did that REAL WELL as Hitler rose to power in the late 20s and early 30s of the 20th Century...and we know what happened there...Remnicks's first instincts were good. Pity that he didn't follow through.
6
Bannon advocates "the deconstruction of the Administrative state".
He choked his ex-wife according to her divorce filing.
The mother of his children accused him of anti-Semitism in child support proceedings.
He was editor of Breitbart which shares a journalism standard with the National Enquirer.
As New Yorker subscriber, I don't need to hear or know any more from Steve Bannon.
5
Isn't the problem at the basis of this discussion the scary fact of the numbers involved? For that is where the 'mob' aspect gets frightening. I am a frequent viewer of the Newshour on PBS which I love and it often talks me off the ledge. But it is not lost on me when they mention a Trump tweet and show his page and I see the number (ever growing) of followers which is well into the 50 millions now. And I think to myself, how many people watch the Newshour? I don't know but I am certain it is in the couple of million range. What is the distribution of the New Yorker? Not huge. With so many of our best and brightest institutions struggling to keep up, the blunt club of social media and the threat it poses to subscriptions and opinion has raised for me the prospect of censorship by force of numbers. Which I thought was something we were always trying to combat. Whether aimed at the NewYorker or aimed at democracy by alt right twitter mobs it is bullying. To cave to this pressure is not the right principle.
1
Thank you Bret. I am so mad. Kathryn Schultz sounds more like a mob flasher to me. I am a subscriber to the New Yorker for over 50 years and was all ready to buy my ticket tomorrow to see Bannon. But nooooo....instead there are ego inflated holloywood (wellmeaning readers, I presume) brat types running the show. Wow, hand slaps all around.
Is anyone old enough in this peanut gallery to remember back in the Vietnam War when Mme Nhu (remember her? remember why she was in NY?) was going to speak at
Columbia University but was prevented by mob rule? That was an importnt voice to be heard then.
This is an old story, mobs crashing in and breaking up the meeting.
One more check against free speech and political discussion.
"Which side are you on?"
I'm FOR. Cmon' David,get back on our side and reinvite Bannon.
5
This is a delicious issue. This is what "the right of free speech" is all about.
One question might be to ask who is going to cast the first stone? Certainly The New York Times is in no position to complain against improper censorship. These people censor my completely reasonable and civil comments every day.
Bret Stephens? Well, the fact that Stephens is published by The New York Times is an embarrassment, in my opinion. And his specific example is indicative of the core of the debate.
I don't want Stephens to be given a platform to write rubbish about climate change. I say that whatever he writes is rubbish because he refuses to respect the facts established by science. This is both deeply stupid and enormously morally wrong.
And I think this is a cut off point. Does "free speech" mean that people have the right to tell blatant lies in public? That's what it comes down to. I think free speech is about the expression of opinion about the facts, not expression of opinion regardless of facts.
But even if that position is accepted, the perhaps more important question is who decides when a person is asserting opinions contrary to the facts and when does that decision get made?
And here is the final twist to this debate I can cover in my allowed characters - I think a lot of people are not worried about the effect of lies on their own opinions, they worry about the effect on the opinions of people of lower intellect.
It's difficult. So, do I get to express an opinion?
2
This is ridiculous. The entire scene setting and Remnick's interview intention amounted to journalistic arrogance. If The New Yorker wishes to hold intellectual festivals, reach higher for mankind's "great ideas". Bannon ought to have been ignored in the first place, sending the message that racism has no place at the roundtable's basic vocabulary of human thought.
Or, maybe we've just had enough.
3
The media needs to get over its Twitter addiction. Poll after poll show that only a small minority of Americans use it (Pew's 2018 social media poll estimates that 24% of Americans are on the platform).
Yet Twitter is constantly cited across news platforms, and is treated as a barometer of public opinion even though it is not. I suspect this is due to a social media echo chamber populated largely by journalists: Journalists are on Twitter, so they assume that everyone else is too. And Twitter enables lazy journalism: why bother doing a real interview with a source when you can just post a tweet-sized soundbite?
But here's the thing: Twitter is not representative. It is populated by some very opinionated, very loud voices. It empowers a crass and angry minority, but completely misses the more civil and level-headed majority. Most of us don't care what the Twitterverse has to say; news media shouldn't either.
5
The point is that Remnick should never have given Bannon a forum to spout and get attention for his white nationalist mantra from the beginning. You cannot have a decent interview with his ilk; he isn't there for give and take. Nothing is to be gained by giving him the reins. I was horrified to see he got through the gate as he did recently in a few other venues. Maybe what happened was the best that could happen given a bad decision in the first place by Remnick. Cut your losses.
4
Twitter is ephemeral.
"Liberals" by refusing to allow white nationalists and their ilk a chance to debate or speak in venues such as this simply reinforce the belief the far right has it is persecuted by the left. Not only that, it also convinces anyone who is uncertain that the far right is correct in saying liberals are the oppressors. It is far better to challenge them in open debate with well reasoned, civil arguments. This will not change their minds, but it will expose them as dangerous and manipulative.
2
Debate is imperative for a democratic society. We need to hear and debate each other in a civil forum. We need to hear what others think about any given subject. It's called educating the public. We, as a society, are hungry for truth to power. Don't take away our individual rights to decide for ourselves. This insults our intelligence to make a decision.
2
It was dumb for the New Yorker to get into this position, because the outcome is all too predictable.
In principle one might think interviewing Bannon could be a great article, if one asked Bannon tough questions. But in practice it is sure to end up like interviewing "the red-nose clown" in the old joke by that name, otherwise known as "the quick wit and rapid reply" joke.
All you'll get out of Bannon is stupid ad hominem remarks, dog-whistle racism, insults, and the usual Gish gallop of nonsense and whataboutism.
Megan McArdle has a column in the WaPo where she admits that the problem with "interviewing" Bannon is that the organization doing so is effectively endorsing Bannon as engaging in rational discourse worth airing ... and she (and Bret Stephens) fail to see the obvious -- there's no value to debating the red-nosed clown, and the rational reply isn't printable anyway.
5
If I were David Remnick I would not have invited Steve Bannon to anything, let alone a public forum for expressing opinions, I would have left him under whatever rock he calls home. But I'm not David Remnick. David Remnick DID invite Steve Bannon, mistake number one, and then UNinvited him, bigger mistake number two, handing Steve Bannon just exactly the kind of attention and publicity he and his ilk get fueled by for absolutely free. Sheesh, the times we're living in....
3
You don't defeat Bannon's worldview by ignoring it or pushing it to the fringe. You combat it openly. This was a lost opportunity.
249
@Jay
We're living Steve Bannon through Donald Trump everyday, and most of us would like to ignore that.
5
@Jay
So at what point do you say we've already heard enough from Bannon? Why do we need to keep giving him a platform? You can watch one of literally dozens of interviews in the past couple years if you want to know his opinions and see people combat them. Why keep bringing him back? He holds no important positions in the White House anymore, and has generally been dismissed by even his colleagues among the alt-right.
Why do we continue to bring up Bannon like he's some important intellectual heavyweight? The New Yorker should never have given him the interview. You might as well just interview an InfoWars correspondent. We know what we're going to get from him. By constantly giving him more platforms, what are we actually accomplishing? No one is going to learn anything from that interview, and you just make people more aware of his existence and normalize his opinions. If you really care about Bannon and what he thinks, you have any number of think-pieces and interviews to dive into. Any reasonable person already knows his views are monstrous. Giving someone like Bannon a platform is pointless if we actually care about intellectual debate.
5
@Jay I very much agree. Regular Americans need to see how awful this man is. However, was it necessary to give him a platform at a fest? I agree with the gentleman above who stated to give him an interview, but not a honorarium.
Frankly, his supporters don't read the New Yorker or probably even realize that they have a such an event. They are too busy watching Fox.
1
I don't think we should give Bannon a platform, but if there were an organization of journalists likely to expose the things that Bannon is pushing that are monstrous, it would be the New Yorker. Bannon pulls off the reasonable look in an interview, and he is smart; getting him to show his real self, the one that lies zippered under his human suit, takes a strong talent.
That Judd Apatow and Jim Carrey were the force behind determining who'd be part of the New Yorker lineup speaks to a less than intellectual bent.
You can't fight an idea that hides in the shadows, and a much as Bannon has been in the forefront of the Trump campaign, he is in the shadows with his crusade globally. And it is a dangerous crusade, as dangerous as Mussolini.
I don't think schools need to give Ann Coulter a platform, or Milo Yannopolis, and i don't think we want to give people a chance to listen to Bannon and say "Yes! The man is just what we need!!" That is always a risk. But we also need Bannon exposed, and if the New Yorker cannot be trusted to handle it, then we are sunk.
Sorry, liberal friends, your are wrong on this one. A lot of people thought Hitler had a point, right up to the part when he started taking land and assets, and killing people by the millions.
157
Klansmen, haters, white supremacists and peddlers of fascism have never been part of the legitimate American conversation; until the rise of Trumpism, including such voices would not even have been considered. Bannon has no love for a tolerant and inclusive society, and a tolerant and inclusive gathering has a right to protect itself against his poisonous and divisive propaganda.
5
The problem with this column is equating a liberal writer with a conservative politician. The New Yorker is not a public official, was never elected by anyone, isn't responsible for policy or peoples' lives. No, it is a commercial enterprise. While Stephens is right to point out the leading right-wing pols who lack conviction, it is hardly the same thing to equate that with The New Yorker. With its other attendees walking out the door and enough of a stink being raised to crater the whole enterprise, the magazine made a craven commercial decision. Yes, crave, but yes, commercial. Frankly, I'm cancelling my Economist subscription because they too think it somehow worthy to interview a racist troll like Bannon. It is not. He is an evil person. Period. And I for one am voting with my dollars.
4
Mr. Bannon can hold whatever opinions he wants, no matter how distasteful they are. Respecting free speech and giving someone a platform are not the same thing. The New Yorker is not required to let Mr. Bannon use it to express his views. The participants who dropped out of the festival and those who expressed themselves on Twitter let Mr. Remnick and Mr. Bannon know, in no uncertain terms, that Bannon's rhetoric and White Supremacist nonsense will not be tolerated. Good for them. I'm sure Bannon has plenty of invitations to speak to groups that share his racist ideas. Let them have him.
5
You nailed it Bret.
2
Stephens wrote:
"The next time we journalists demand “courage” of the politicians, let’s first take care to prove that we know what the word means, and to exhibit some courage ourselves."
That's a worthy ideal, and I agree that Remnick should not have disinvited Bannon.
However, there's a lot of irony and hypocrisy in Stephens make this moral pronouncement.
Why? Because he, like the rest of the conservative punditocracy, sat in silence over the past decade while the Republican party systematically worked to destroy the value of truth in our political discourse; while they worked to undermine trust in our government and our law enforcement; while they demonstrated disdain for the rule of law; and while they destroyed all norms of civility and decency in our society.
Mr. Stephens, did you speak out against the constant stream of lies that Fox News, Limbaugh/Hannity et al, and even venues like the Wall Street Journal (your former employer) has been proagating for 10+ years? Did you speak out when the Republicans did outrageous things like announcing that they would refuse to work with Pres Obama; when they shouted "You lie!" during one of his speeches; when they stole a seat on the Supreme Court? Did you speak out against the blatant hatred that Jones/Coulter/Limbaugh/Hannity and Fox News readers have been fomenting?
No; you sat in silence; you were complicit!
You're a hypocrite, and you have no right to give other journalists a moral lecture about the need for courage.
6
Mr. Stevens attempted to disguise the removal of Bannon from the dais as a liberal rant - as if the topic is charter schools or the minimum wage, instead of white supremacism and neo-Nazi ideology.
Hate Has No Home on any stage in this country.
7
"It (The New Yorker) has turned a nativist bigot into a victim of liberal censorship."
No, Mr. Stephens, that would be you, in that sentence.
4
Let's legitimize a creep like Bannon, Bret. Did you conveniently forget that even his spousal behavior has required a phone call to the police? He deserves no platform whatsoever outside of Faux News where he can spew his invective. He may have predicted how to put Trump into the White House, with the only lesson to be learned is the path that should never again be taken and or the means used. You should concentrate more on the reprehensible power grab as maliciously practiced by McConnell and his cronies to disfigure the United States of America beyond recognition... with sixth grader Trump greasing the way.
7
Twitter has struck fear into people the way all facism does. It’s a mother eating its own childen.
1
Bannon is a throughly evil creature. Even if we stipulate that he has something to say, there is nothing in his discourse that cannot be found written on the wall of a portajohn at a klan rally. The New Yorker had no more obligation to give him space than a sushi restaurant has to serve chum.
6
Smh. Brett's got a good thing going. He shouts how much he hates Trump, and gets paid. Then he cozens up to the tin horn dictator netanayu, and defends bannon and the racist Charles Murray. So actually he's in bed with Trump. What I like though is his frank declaration that all of this is conservatism. And yes it is, in all its ugly
goose stepping stridency.
3
I think it was a lousy idea to invite Bannon for any number of reasons. But once invited I think it is wrong to dis-invite him.
1
Excellent. Thank you.
New Yorker subscriber here. It was a boneheaded idea to invite Steve Bannon to express his white supremacist views at a New Yorker function. Period. He should never have been invited. He should not be there at all. Do not dignify his demagoguery by giving him a platform. Let him consort with swastikas and tiki-torch bearers.
5
Hey Bret, why don’t you interview him yourself?
5
Time for a little "time travel" How about inviting Herr Hitler to an New Yorker interview in 1936 to have him explain his plans for the creation of a Jewish state in Africa and why he is simply trying to create Lebensraum for echt Germans. Or do a similar interview with Charles Lindberg a few years later. Or maybe a staging of Joseph Stalin in 1938 so that he could fully explain the workings of his socialist paradise. We could add stagings for Franco and Mussolini in the same time period. They could all explain why they were not what some thought them to be. I mean, after all we live in a postmodern fake news world where both truth and falsehood can be deconstructed. As John Steinbeck once wrote "there ain't no good and there ain't no bad, there's just stuff people do". In the imaginary interview of Remnick and Bannon they would engage in predictable ranting and raving , ad hominem arguments, blood pressures would be elevated. It would all end with a lot of "sound and fury signifying nothing". Remnick might even get a pay raise and journalists like Mr. Stephens et. al usher them off the stage with a standing ovation. I suggest Mr. Remnick , for encores, might consider an anti-evolution acolyte or a global warming denier. The decade might end with a spirited colloquium featuring members of the flat earth society. Now that's Freedom of the Press.
1
Nah. A Remnick interview for print is fine and should happen. An interview in person and on video is a mistake, now corrected. Chill, dude.
LQ
4
In more normal times, it would be appropriate for Mr. Bannon to attend the conference and be interviewed.
In case Mr Stephens hasn't notice, these are not normal times. We are on the precipice of losing our democracy. We have a likely insane, ignorant, illegitimate POTUS, who daily strives to further attack and destroy our institutions.
Mr. Bannon is the cheerleader for Trumpian dystopia. Why the heck should he be given a forum for continuing his attacks on all that is good and beautiful about our Country?
4
Bret,
Anything you say will be suspect. We all know where your alliances live.
Schulz is progressive bully worthy of firing? That says it all.
What happened to the first amendment Bret.
Remnick made a very stupid decision without realizing the blowback he would get. What could he possibly say to Bannon that would be insightful. Bannon is just a spin-meister and a hate monger. I agree with you he got more out of this storm than he dreamed of.
The NYT demeaned itself when it hired you, along with Douthat.
4
Oh, Bret! Comparing the New Yorker editorial staff to Fox and Friends? Really?
3
Just look to the Oval Office when a right-wing bigot is provided a megaphone and a national audience...over and over and over. And by any measure, Bannon is a genius compared to Trump.
A "tough" interview wit Bannon would change how many minds? Either for or against the man and his agenda?
The idea of interviewing Bannon should have died a-borning.
4
At least Mr. Remnick realized how stupid he was in contemplating an "event" with someone as evil as Bannon, and corrected his error. Republicans aren't about to do that with Donald Trump because they are cowards and he has captured the Republican Party.
Is this column the best you can do now, Mr. Stephens, to try to protect your party from its cowardice? Shame on you.
3
Interesting how all the NYT picks have the same POV :). Seriously, Remnick made a dumb initial decision-have an edgy "dialog", and backed out of it, probably to the roar of the crowd-
A badly-conceived circus overreach for Remnick that the long run, is no shame to cancel.
2
It’s not censorship when you’ve heard enough of someone’s speech to know they’re a monster, it’s decency. Remnick never should have offered to give Bannon a platform for his vile hate.
4
Bret Stephens looks at a white-nationalist racist and thinks we still live in a quaint world of “I disagree with you but will defend your right to voice your views!” After all, as Trump assured us, there are good people on both sides, right Bret? And even if you do believe Bannon is a despicable creature, how naive do you have to be to think David Remnick will emerge victorious were this event to have happened? The audience would be packed with Bannon supporters who would cheer and applaud his every word. Bannon would play Remnick like a violin because glib answers are always easy for fascists like Bannon. What a perfect gift of normalization!
3
Free speech does not preclude speech to protest speakers, does it? Righteous indignation does not mean anything when it willfully excludes the speech that denies speech. Ross Douthat’s column does not have a comments option today. Is the NYT protecting Ross from the criticism that his absurd defense of Trump deserves? The New Yorker is capable of making decisions about who attends their event. Stephens has the right to protest the New Yorker’s response of participants and social media. It’s Stephens motives that are questionable. Just how disgusting, how revolting does a person or topic have to be to be denied an audience? Pedophiles? Holocaust deniers? Promoters of genocide? One could imagine that Yiannopoulos or Bannon is that repugnant to enough people to deny them an audience without damaging free speech.
False Equivalence: Bannon and George Wallace. Wallace was a governor and a presidential candidate. Bannon is a con-man. Khomeini was the “Supreme leader” of Iran. Bannon’s soap box was payed for by the Mercers. Perhaps examining the tyranny of money over free speech is a worthier target for Bret Stephens? Isn’t Twitter a better form of speech than anything an oligarch can promote?
2
The headline "Now Twitter Edits the New Yorker" is utterly misleading. People lamenting the end of an era for the magazine are totally missing the point: None of this had anything to do with the content of the actual magazine. All it was about was a dopey conference that the New Yorker puts its name on to make some pocket change.
Before we boo-hoo about misinformation being censored, let's remember that Germany is a thriving democracy that does not allow holocaust deniers and other propagandists to spread nonsense like Bannon does. (Since Germany understands that spreading misinformation threatens a democracy JUST AS FULLY as prohibiting certain speech does.) I'm sorry your liar didn't get to lie on the New Yorker's stage, Stephens.
10
If the New Yorker wants to interview Bannon and print it, fine. But in the context of the festival, I have to agree with the outrage and concern about giving him a platform like that. Just like the comment threads in the New York Times are moderated (censored) for civility, a festival should be too. Bannon should be allowed to say the hateful things he espouses (which he does), the New Yorker festival should not be that platform.
5
This entire affair is yet another example of free speech being constrained by the reins of the mob. Universities do it when invitations to speak are rescinded because of left wing student anger. Media does it when journalists are fired for past 'transgressions'. Professors can be dismissed for saying the 'wrong' thing. When does thIs madness end? Inviting someone to speak, or reading what someone wants to write is not in itself a vindication of their views. We are not 'normalizing' them by listening to them. We are exposing them. I may not agree with what Bannon has to say, but I will defend his right to say it, and I will defend and even applaud any effort by any publication or media outlet to publish it and air it. To do otherwise is to sink to the level we see everywhere today, that of group think and mass conformity to the cause we identify with. 1984 here we are.
1
@Rick Morris
meh....Bannon can stand on any street corner and speak. his rights are still intact.
2
@M
...but mine won't be because chances are I won't be there to hear him.
Except for the "echo chamber" slur, Stephens is right about this one. The New Yorker may be soon publishing and protecting the poetry of disgruntled college students.
1
The Heckler's Veto has become the norm on the left whether on college campuses or now at New Yorker. This is problematic for multiple reasons: it increases the echo chamber, it gives the extremes power at the expense of the moderates, and it makes it impossible to find common ground or even be taken seriously by the other side. And it certainly isn't just about silencing racists. Look at the attacks are Mark Lilla, someone who's liberal credentials are solid, for questioning whether identity politics were partly responsible the 2016 election. This often feels like some version of the french Reign of Terror where failure to show sufficient ideological purity leads to the guillotine.
1
Let's see if I got this right. A poorly thought out invitation to an odious individual whose presence in our political system is a symptom of possibly fatal illness. A recognition of the mistake after it is pointed out, and not only on Twitter. (I would love to have been a fly on the wall at the next NY staff meeting.)
Oh my Stars and Garters! Suddenly, the intellectual fabric of upper middlebrow America is torn apart. No, Bret, it was applying McCain's lesson: when you make a mistake, admit it. And in this case, rectify it.
11
It's bad enough that email has made setting up a meeting with two or three people into an exchange of 12 emails when 3 phone calls would have done the trick, but Twitter eliminates practical exchange altogether. Did the editor of the New Yorker call up Jim Carey or Judd Apatow and cut a deal or try to talk them out of it? Did Jim Carey or Judd Apatow call up the editor before declaring their intentions on Twitter? Twitter is an id-enabler. It isn't a two-way communication platform. It removes humanity from the human. It is the wall of a public bathroom. Sometimes it's funny. Most of the time it is not.
1
I found this on Twitter yesterday and it's an interesting point: "Though one of the media dynamics of the McCarthy era is that reporters kept interviewing McCarthy because he always had something buzzy and newsy to say, even if it was all a fraud. But it was an exciting fraud." Sound familiar.
6
Apples and oranges Mr. Stephens. I leave the merits or of engaging or disengaging Mr. Bannon aside. The point of your article seems to be that liberal journalists are hypocritical when they criticize GOP members of congress for cowardice in the face of a rouge, possibly illegitimate president, when they themselves succumb to a tirade on Twitter. It seems to me your examples journalists and politicians are by their natures not comparable. Politicians are elected to serve the people and have a sworn duty to follow the constitution. It is reasonable to assume a fair degree of honesty and ethical and moral back bone. Any breach of that duty and trust is a grave matter. Journalists changing their mind on inviting Steve Bannon, eh not so much.
3
Those who claim Bannon is undermining liberal democracy damage it immensely themselves. The solution to “hate speech” is more speech, not censorship. Let all ideas combat freely in the marketplace of ideas. That’s what liberal democracy, and America, represent. These liberal journalists, not to mention those on college campuses showing similar intolerance, do more damage to America than Bannon could ever hope to do.
@DRS: It's not censorship. It's editorial responsibility. Bannon has no place in American discourse. He has never earned it.
6
What a disappointment. What I have been thinking of as courage on the part of the New Yorker during these past months was simply editorial decisions that amount to preaching to the choir (of which I am a member). Remnick should be ashamed of himself and so should the staff member who was "appalled". I remember my shock and dismay in 1964 when a group of conservatives tried to shout down Harry Bridges of the Longshoremen's union when he spoke at Stanford. It left me with a distaste for this kind of intolerance that lingers to this day. I don't care who it is, intelligent debate is the life blood of our democracy.
227
Should Bannon have been invited in the first place? I think not. It would have legitimized him, and he only gained notoriety through Trump, although one could argue that his affiliation with Trump “outed” his, and Breitbart’s, nefarious behind the scenes influence. Should the invitation once it was accepted, be honored? I think yes, come what may. By the way: It would not have been a regular interview to be published in the New Yorker, but a live interview for a special occasion. That does carry risks, of Bannon stealing the spotlight for instance. That’s different from the interview Oriana Falaci had sometime in the 1970s in Paris with Khomeiny, who at that time was in exile and quite the darling of the Left, due to his opposition of the USA-installed Sjah of Persia. I was alarmed about his views of women at the time (he demanded Falaci cover her hair), but my leftwing brethren dismissed my concerns.
1
Okay, I agree with this and yet who has given Twitter such power?
Our nation/culture/society is enthralled and beholden to the Tweet. And of course Trump has adroitly used Twitter to rule.
Why has no 'real' journalist, publication insisted upon a real interview with POTUS?
Everyone has bent before the king and America now lives by Tweet. It's not just Trump of course but we really need to shut of our screen time 'bigly'.
As for our faux preppy revolutionary nationalist, Bannon should never have been invited in the first place and Remnick really handled the whole situation badly. Let another publication pay him for his hate speech.
1
Rather than a ‘digital mob’ I see those who raised their voices against fascism as refusing to stand idly by
77
@Mhiop Sorry, you missed the whole point of the New Yorker interview: to shine a light on "fascism" and raise a voice (Remnick's) against it. Please read Stephen's piece again.
1
@Mhiop One of the aspects of fascism that makes it so horrible is the notion that certain ideas cannot be expressed. Who is acting "fascist" here? Covering up bad ideas only allows them to marinate behind the curtain with no real criticism. We need to bring back rhetoric
1
@Mhiop: it’s a common left-wing tactic to declare anyone who disagrees with left-wing ideology as “fascist”....
The soviets invaded Hungary and Czechoslovakia after accusing them of being overrun by “fascists”.
By all means, let’s address cowardice. Bannon, despite mass student protest and a letter of protest from nearly 1k alumni, was invited to speak on “economic nationalism” at the University of Chicago. He chickened out when Booth Professor Austan Goolsbee was to be the one debating him. No one has heard a peep from Bannon. Instead, he went pecking around in the EU, and was sent packing by their neo-Nazis. Seems Bannon just isn’t well-regarded anywhere: not by our racist prez, not by people who remember what happened in Charlottesville last year, not even by his peers in Europe, who wanted no part of him. This is about choice, Mr. Stephens, and about our First Amendment. Bannon is absolutely free to spout abhorrent ideas. All of us who think those ideas damage the fabric of the society we hope to build, where hateful rhetoric and atavistic delusion stay in the past (we DID fight a war against Bannon’s intellectual predecessors, after all), are absolutely free to NOT approve, to NOT listen to him, and to NOT appear at an event where he will spew his hatefulness. There is such a thing as group courage. That is what’s standing against the likes of Bannon. I see nothing wrong in Mr Remnick disinviting him. Nothing at all.
8
No need to ever interview someone with viewpoints we disagree with ... they should be blocked from social media ... they need to be censored from public expression .... burn their books ... shun them at every turn ... perhaps we can imprison them ...
Or we could just disagree?
@dave, no one is burning books, and our Constitution does not allow imprisoning anyone for their opinions or speech, no matter how loathsome.
Except for Trump, who does advocate silencing his critics and making it illegal to protest.
And also except for those who disagree with Colin Kaepernick's protests and Nike's decision to employ him in ads and are burning Nike merchandise.
The Constitution ensures the GOVERNMENT will not limit or punish freedom of speech. It does not guarantee anyone a platform for that speech.
The New Yorker - just as with the New York Times - has the right to refuse to give someone a platform, just as it has the right to refuse to publish any of our comments.
3
I’ve been a subscriber to the New Yorker for nigh on 30 years and I’ve noticed the magazine’s slow descent into identity politics as well as shifting further to the left. That shift has caused me to consider cancelling my subscription on more than one occasion in the past couple of years. This incident is one of those.
You invited Bannon, so stick to the interview.
106
@Diego ~ I have no intention of canceling my long-time subscription to the New Yorker, but I am truly sorry that all those pseudo-grand folks rose up against David Remnick's invitation to Steve Bannon.
@Diego
Nope. Not a shift to the left. Long before 30 years ago The New Yorker magazine's superior journalism helped me get through the Vietnam war. The so-called leftward slant today is merely a reflection of the terrible shift to the right that has occurred since Reagan. The "Center" of both parties has shifted far to the right. Sad!
But I agree the interview should have taken place. Especially considering the sources of the disapproval. They should listen and learn!
Thank you, Bret Stephens! Whatever happened to liberal "open mindedness" or fairness?
2
@me: Define 'fairness.'
Agree 100% with Mr. Stephens points here. This is what it is all about - to air all sides and debate the issues in public forums, where their ideas can be exposed and countered civilly. Don't acquiesce to bumper sticker shallow Twitterers, and the rule of the online mob. That's the Internet at its worst. Let the others drop out, their loss and immaturity. Have some online guts kind Editor-in-Chief, and put your employees in their place while you're at it. Crimminy
1
Since Mr. Stephens' own claim to fame is his role as the conservative voice in a liberal media outlet, it is not really shocking that he believes his fellow rightist Mr. Bannon deserves a starring role in a liberal magazine's info-gala.
What is comical is the high moral tone of his demand for political publicity.
One gets the impression that the New Yorker editor's West Side duplex was being stormed by "mobs" of twitterized New Yorker readers (no doubt driving down from Westchester and Connecticut) in their pitchforks and overalls.
Or was Mr. Remnick forced to go from office to office, begging cowardly fact checkers, craven cartoonists and over-sensitive short-story writers to help him fight off the ferocious Twitter assault, like Marshal Kane in HIGH NOON?
A good capitalist like Mr. Stephens should be aware that Mr. Remnick more than earns his million dollar salary. Under his direction, unlike most publications, the New Yorker has increased circulation, despite subscription price increases, and now has advertising revenue approaching $200 million annually. He should also know that the decision makers for the New Yorker are of course not internet "mobs"but Conde Nast, their media giant owner, for whom the liberal voice of conscience is just another profit stream, along with Vanity Fair, Vogue, Brides, Wired, Golf Digest, etc.
1
What would Mr. Remnick have accomplished with a Steve Bannon interview that we haven't seen or read before? We have been living with the destruction he helped create for over 3 years, it's exhausting, depressing and frightening.
More suitable candidates would have been Steve Miller, Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, Jerry Falwell, Mike Huckabee, Jared Kushner, Brett Kavanaugh, Steve Munchkin Charles or David Koch to name a few. Trump would be flattered to accept an invitation by a well respected publication.
I for one would be interested to learn how these people can justify their systematic undermining Democracy and pulling the rug out from under the majority of the population.
5
This is obtuse. Twitter isn't editing the magazine. People invited to the festival as speakers refused to appear if the appalling Bannon appeared as well. That's not the same thing, and free publicity for all is not a constitutional right. We have already heard from Bannon, of course, because he's helped corrupt our politics and he likes to use America's institutions against it. We don't need to continue normalizing fascism.
7
Another example of liberal intolerance. Why are they so afraid of opposing viewpoints? If you think that you know all about Mr Bannon, then pass on participating in the interview and let others participate.
57
@Marvin: IMHO, white-supremecy, nazism and fascism are NOT opposing 'viewpoints,' and they should be rejected ... resoundingly.
3
Marvin--We are not afraid of "opposing viewpoints," of which Bannon's is not one. We simply refuse to stand tacitly by, as if theirs were valid and worthy of respect, which they are not. These outliers get enough publicity, already. Fortunately they are a tiny minority, and their efforts to effect our democratic republic will be stamped out. His is not a legitimate alternative viewpoint, and never will be, in the United States of America.
2
@Marvin
The liberals and progressives I know (myself included), aren't 'afraid' of the 'opposing viewpoints' of avowed white supremacists like Bannon (yes, let's call these people exactly what they are) - We. Are. Angry.
Bannon's exclusively white Euro-centric view of the world and indeed of human history is factually and scientifically baseless, laughable even, and can be easily refuted.
Next time perhaps Mr. Remnick could invite on a representative from the flat earth society, or maybe an expert on Alchemy, since he seems to feel that any long discredited ideas from the past deserve a forum to be disproven all over again.
1
e thing about the opinions of Brannon and men of his ilk is that they have the means to buy their way into the arena of opinion and the storyline they say is “ the truth”. All the rest of us have is the free press. So if that is how we control the message, thank god someone is willing to go on the line and say that he won’t give the blowhard a platform there!!!
1
Wrong on so many levels, Mr. Stephens. This dis-invitation has nothing to do with censorship. It has everything to do with removing a lying, narcissistic spokesperson from the normality of an arts forum. We the people, we the readers have seen and heard enough from the would-be tyrants who front for both the GOP and the wing nuts who'd destroy civil rights for the rest of us. We do not need an interview by even the most articulate bold editor to normalize Bannon's irrational concept of power. Watching David Duke or Charles Manson (or Goebbels or Himmler or Mussolini) might make news and be "fair" but these persons don't get on a platform to engage in civil discourse. NO. And, get over it; Twitter is here to stay, learn to use it.
3
Next time invite David Duke. He and Bannon are in agreement on white nationalism. No? Too many hoods and cross burnings? Bannon never did those things. He just incites others to do it. So, his is a legitimate voice, right?
58
@BB Fernandez Did you read the article? That is addressed when the author mentions that George Wallace was interviewed by the New Yorker.
@BB Fernandez
His is an influential voice, but that does not mean it is legitimate. It is a voice that needs to be challenged.
I don't understand this criticism at all -- although it's not nearly the stupidest thing that Stephens writes on a regular basis. This is the same logic that says you can't investigate executive branch crime because you might find too much of it. It was clearly an idiotic, if probably well meaning mistake on Remnick's part to invite this troll and imbue him with the the imprimatur of the New Yorker ideas festival. For one thing, it falsely advertises that the bile Bannon promotes have "ideas" behind them. But Stephens' criticism is that the light shone on the stupid decision so quickly revealed it to be wrong that Remnick did the right thing and admitted he was wrong. If there was no venue for that speed and dissemination of information, then the wrong decision would not have been corrected and that's the optimal outcome?
3
Bret - you are a welcome and much needed voice at the NYT.
Stephens is using the trite republickspittle playbook of crying whataboutism and comparing a peccadillo (disinviting an invidious narcissist to a private event) to a national crisis (pretty much all republicans aside from sasse (is he the only one left?) failing to stand up to the hateful chump breaking our country). More depressing sophistry to spur a few clicks. I’m kinda impressed he was able to prattle that into an entire article.
2
Isn’t Jim Carrey an anti-vaccine propagandist?
Who is Judd Apatow, a tv show producer?
Would any commenter here go listen to these panelists speak?
No wonder Remnick thought he had to find someone to add.
@Tombo, not only that he seems totally insane. Apatow is just a powerful sketchy guy.
Remnick was right to rescind his invitation (and honorarium) to the much-interviewed propagandist and white nationalist gadfly. The New Yorker festival is promotional event, not journalism. If Twitter lobbying helped Remnick regain his good judgment, well, that represents more discernment that you usually find on the platform.
3
I hate to say but it I cringe when I hear Ann Coulter or Laura Ingraham refer to liberals as snowflakes because it's often true. "Oh, the outrage!" And this example is par excellence! The spectacle of snowflake liberals conforming to type is just too dispiriting.
And in this particular case, it shows the shortcomings of taking this position. The best way to delegitimize Bannon is to shine a spotlight on him and make him defend his positions at every possible opportunity as Bret so aptly said.
As a longer time subscriber to The New Yorker as well as an admirer of David Remnick, I have been wondering why he even considered giving a platform to the smarmy hate mongering Bannon in the first place. Surely there is nothing new to be learned from listening to the rude and crude white nationalist Bannon who, as we have already seen, will talk over Remnick and in true bully form interrupt him repeatedly whenever he doesn’t care to answer a legitimate question. So, no thank you Mr. Stephens, and as far as I am concerned, the toxic Bannon and anyone else who espouses his hateful racist ideology should be shunned and avoided like the plague that they are.
4
“I have every intention of asking him difficult questions and engaging in a serious and even combative conversation,” Remnick told The Times in an interview conducted before he withdrew the invitation. “The audience itself, by its presence, puts a certain pressure on a conversation that an interview alone doesn’t do. You can’t jump on and off the record.”
Finally a chance to expose Bannon, maybe not. The leftists must think Mr. Remnick is so dim witted he would be overwhelmed by Bannon or that their arguments aren't very persuasive. Maybe they think Americans are too stupid and need to be protected from thinking for themselves.
Calm down Bret
The festival is a commercial affair
Those who were partaking had the right to withdrawal because the festival was giving a voice to a white supremacist
Nothing Bannon would say would change his white supremacy and giving him a platform legitimatizes it
You guys don’t get it - interviewing white supremacists normalizes it
I’m with mulaney and Patton - move on to something else that doesn’t give voice to these people
Free speech is not equivalent to say whatever you want to a publication that stokes racism - Twitter was the better editor
4
Instead of parroting the trope "speaking truth to power", maybe journalists (and editors) should try "speaking truth to the online mob". That is, if they have the guts to do so.
O, come, come, Mr. Stephens, would you have written the same article if, say, Colin Kaepernick, or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, were the disinvited, or would you have found it in your deep deep soul searching to find a way to rationalize such a "brave" New Yorker move?
3
David Remnick had the courage and common sense to listen to both prominent voices and his own journalists and admit that he made a mistake, which has increased my respect for him. While you... are just being a contrarian. Why? Maybe because your job is to write something... anything?
Please increase the value of your contributions. Of course Twitter has a powerful influence on journalists. Equating David Remnicks Action’s with Paul Ryan... really, do they not teach the meaning of false equivalency in journalism schools anymore?
4
I am not a subscriber but comparing the New Yorker to a left-wing version of Fox and Friends is a cheap shot, unworthy of Mr Stephens.
2
American law has not caught up with the malign technological corrupt crony capitalist corporate plutocrat oligarch welfare king "robber barons" and "malefactors of great wealth" in Silicon Valley and the Kremlin.
MAGA!
The plan was to bring two massive egos together - Remnick and Bannon -- to debate. Remnick would be the probing leftie intellectual and Bannon would be the counter punching alt right ruffian. Later Remnick would be accused by the left of asking soft ball questions and Bannon would be hailed as a hero by the right for taking on the libs. Bannon would cement the growing view that his is a legitimate voice for white nationalism and Remnick would go back and pen something about Trump. In the meantime, outside the DC/NY bubble, black and brown folks would still be putting up with 24/7 racism.
2
One commenter writes something like he/she doesn't like giving people like Bannon a platform because it "legitimizes Bannon's stances as debatable ideas. But why do I read the NewYorker instead of, say, People magazine ? A main reason is because I trust the editors to publish what I need to know. If David Remnick thinks I should hear/hear his interview of Bannon then I'll give it a listen. Why don't I read the National Enquirer, after all, I read all the Stormy Daniels articles in the Times ? Very simple: I don't trust the Enquirer whereas I do trust the editors of the Times, not 100% (not even my mother when she was alive, got 100% of my trust). What's my alternative, to be omniscient ? If David Remnick thinks my education is lacking exposure to Bannon, I should take the chance of being swayed to the concept that Bannon's utterances are debatable ideas.
Boycotts are a democratic way of voicing dissent. Maybe you'd be more comfortable someplace where dissent is not allowed.
2
Wouldn’t it just be a waste of time? Apparently including Bannon, would have caused most of the other participants to bow out. Then what do you have? Steve Bannon shooting off his mouth. What a yawn. What would have been good was a panel. The Norman Mailer , Germaine Greer kind of battle.
1
Bret, your argument is persuasive but, come on, it's a little too neat. I don't think you really believe that the New Yorker Festival is the forum for the kind of hard-hitting journalism you're talking about. Remnick's stunt is the liberal equivalent of CPAC putting an intersectional feminist Marxist on the program.
2
So sick of the "White supremacists are people, too!" schtick.
Journalists haven't been interviewing KKK types for decades, and with good reason. Why are they suddenly owed a platform?
Good grief. We know what racists think. Why do we need to smash our own faces in it? Why do we need to expose little kids to their hatred?
Good decision by The New Yorker, although it should never have extended the invitation in the first place.
7
If Twitter is indeed "editing the New Yorker," it's still better than our current White House occupant "leading" by Twitter.
More false equivalence, Mr. Stephens. The New Yorker is not our government, and whoever its leadership invites or disinvites to one of its events does not threaten democracy - unlike Trump, Bannon, and their Republican minions.
Bannon should not have been invited to a New Yorker event in the first place - that was the disastrous mistake. Bannon's fascism and racism are as vile as the ideologies of ISIS, Nazism, and the KKK - he doesn't deserve a mainstream platform normalizing his extremist views anymore than those groups do.
Anymore than the NY Times should give David Duke a regular column.
Bannon and his ilk - including Trump - are not interested in engaging in dialogue or reasoned debate. All they do is shout slogans and catchphrases intended to incite angry mobs - or tweet hate and lies.
Yes, ideally, the New Yorker event would include conservatives who could put forth cogent, reasoned arguments. But where are they?
Seems that type of conservative is extinct and all we're left with are racists, fascists, religious fanatics, and war profiteers, and all of them raking in huge piles of dirty money and tax breaks on the backs of the rest of us.
Social media in this case acted as the slaps that brought Remnick to his senses.
5
Mr. Stephens, like the GOP in Congress, never knows if he wants to attack or defend Trump and Bannon racism and horrible Government. Oh, so confusing to have your history of passive response to southern strategies, willie horton, right through to Rev. Jeremiah Wright and "birther" Obama attacks. What is a neo con like Stephens to do today? Waffle on alternate Wednesdays i guess.
2
Author is too young, inexperienced to write a meaningful article about the New Yorker magazine. Stephens lacks a frame of reference. To appreciate the "hebdo" 1 would have to go back to the days of Harold ROSS, then to a lesser extent, William Shawn, to appreciate what a great read it was and how so many of us, who actually read books, periodicals,early and late editions of the Daily Mirror, NYT , loved it. The New Yorker was great because, in the words of Renata Adler, it put product over advertisers and even it's own readers. It was always solvent. Then , when the magazine turned leftward, started to adopt left wing positions, featured articles by Schell among others, it lost its appeal.No editor in chief after Shawn could ever bring it back, and it began and continue to lose money since his departure. Today, it's like any other magazine. Suggest author read Renata Adler's "Gone:The Last Days of the New Yorker." Re relationship between Bannon and David Remnick: much ado about nothing. Bannon is an intellectual, author of several books and co founder of Breitbart. Edward Tannenbaum, g never one to bite his tongue, would tell students, "You don't know anything,"hoping to motivate them to broaden their intellectual horizons. Read Adler's book with its great title, and envision what a superior publication it was because it put the "product" before the reader and advertiser. No longer the case today:magazine is heavy on political correctness!.
Well, Mr. Bret Stephens, I think that you are wrong. The Twitter outrage in this case is a good thing. We all know what Bannon is about, and another interview would only emphasize a spotlight over his head. You wrote that the fact that the interview will now not take place "...has kept Bannon’s name prominently in the news, no doubt to his considerable delight...". In fact, you, Mr. Bret Stephens are the one that is bringing this to the spotlight and feeding Bannon's ego but writing this newspaper opinion.
2
Indeed it was a mistake not to include Bannon in the event. It simply gives him free publicity, which is the last thing we need regarding fascism and its perpetrators. By interviewing him, he would have trotted out his tired old rubbish and anyone with a brain would have just yawned and looked forward to the next speaker/interviewee.
1
Gutless or cowardly? How about a business decision? Lose Bannon or Fallon? Which is the money-maker? This was a course correction from a real stupid idea to invite Bannon in the first place. How would CPAC react if Elizabeth Warren was announced as the main draw? Yesh, I thought so.
3
“... what this really means is that Remnick is no longer the editor of The New Yorker. Twitter is.”
A bit overwrought, wouldn’t you admit?
Nothing whatsoever in The New Yorker was ediited.
A man whose presence at a live event would have caused others to refuse to participate was disinvited. It was a pragmatic decision, not a cowardly retreat.
So big deal.
84
@Jeffrey Herrmann
I would much rather have read that interview than listen to a pair of celebrities babble on about whatever cause du jour.
Which sounds better, Bannon's ideas being torn apart publicly by a respected news source, which conservatives will read and must process or Jim Carey droning on about white privilege and gun control?
@Jeffrey Herrmann Yeah, it was a cowardly retreat. "It's just business" is an excuse worthy of Trump, not The New Yorker.
@Jeffrey Herrmann: As an editor with decades of experience, including news reporting and leading a successful campaign to free a Chilean dissident student from Pinochet's prison-and-torture system, I must respectfully disagree. Being an editor is not only about writing, copyediting, and proofreading copy. It is about making good decisions about the news value of certain public figures, doing thorough research before interviewing them, and then deciding how to present the information gleaned from the interview. Mr. Remnick surrendered his decision-making authority as The New Yorker's editor to members of his staff, who are his employees, and to two celebrities acting very much like Trump and his ilk.
I assert that your opinion is mistaken. David Remnick, who reported for the New York Times from the old Soviet Union under much more dangerous conditions, allowed himself to be bullied out of doing his job as a journalist in interrogating Steve Bannon, who, for better or worse, is an important political figure in our time. Journalists interviewed Hitler in his time because he was a newsmaker, albeit a beastly one. But the job of journalism--history's first draft--had to be done. It still has to be done.
The conclusions of "this means that". It's gotta be nice to be a journalist. One day you can be in accord with the liberal columnist on most subjects, and the next you can be devils advocate for....our bloated cartoon devil in a bad jacket. Bannon, Trump are simple carnival barkers. Their ploy is simple. If Remnick wants to yank the rug from under a carnival barker from time to time, fine. This wasn't a rescinded offer to Kim Jong, or Vladimir Putin, or other people who hold actual positions of real power. This was a rescinded offer to one of our current charlatans, our current watered down Rasputin. Judd Apatow essentially holds more actual power than Bannon. I find it hysterical, I'll keep reading the New Yorker and hold it in high regard. You keep sitting with the liberals and remind us how well rounded you are. Jeez....
2
The market will solve this problem. There is only so much space for "woke" media. Probably very little because the woke don't spend money on media, they live on twittersphere and believe that everything should be free anyway. At the moment, 90% of what could once be considered unbiased media is increasingly giving in to the Social Justice Mob and is moving more and more into their direction. And because there is limited space, most of them will end up bankrupt. And new unbiased media outlets will rise and take their place. It's like watching the dinosaurs being wiped out and replaced by mammals.
Absolutely right and on the spot! Great article! Congratulations!
Thoughtfully written and spot on.
There needs to be a rules of civility for adults using Twitter. We need to grow up.
8
We received a subscription to The NewYorker as a wedding present many decades ago and still subscribe.
It has been our source of in depth writing both on current events and culture and the fiction section is first class.
I am deeply disappointed in the decision to not include Bannon at the festival. If the New Yorker cannot stand for the First Amendment who will? Bannon has some ideas about how a significant portion of our country voted in desperation for a faux populist and it would have been nice to hear what he had say.
Being frightened by tweets is not exactly a profile in courage.
15
Why is this considered censorship? It is not. The fact is we do well know what Bannon stands for, as well as what his motives and intents are. The invitation to headline this event would just be giving Bannon another visible forum to spew his stuff.
Bannon can say all he wants. It doesn't mean we have to give him the forum.
How often does the conservative media invite liberal thought and opinion?
91
@DMurphy You missed the point. Its not about Bannon- substitute any other name, it's about the mob over riding the editor.
1
@DMurphy How often does the conservative media invite liberal thought and opinion? A heck of a lot more often than The NY Times makes a conservative opinion a “Times Pick” in the comments section.
@DMurphy "How often does the conservative media invite liberal thought and opinion?" Isn't that the point though? When did the media become so partisan that their identity determines who they can speak with?
Public outcry has ALWAYS had veto power over any commercial publication.
6
Testing the daily prevailing political winds isn't exactly good journalism. Being scared off an agenda by Twitter campaigns says loads about the gelatin spines of New Yorker management. If they had an opportunity to interview Putin, would they really do it?
The pleasure from reading this magazine for most of my adult life has been the pages devoted to examining outsiders, that fascinating group of weirdos, crooks, demagogues and misfits.
Vanilla journalism is comparable in excitement to football's "three yards and a cloud of dust."
Boring.
2
Bret: So, you are equating ONE possibly questionable decision by a person who doesn't hold office and therefore didn't take an oath to uphold the Constitution, with the literally THOUSANDS of times when republican leaders didn't stand up for democracy? You actually feel the two are equal? This is a classic example of false equivalency that republicans are famous for.
14
Giving a stage to Bannon so he can speak about his views gives him exactly what he needs to spread his brand of white nationalism -- attention and amplification. His alt-right racism is revolting and making it part of a "festival" of anything, especially ideas, is revolting and worthy of the response it got.
6
Isn't this a repeat of the New Yorker's hasty scurry from appointing conservative columnist Kevin Williamson to the editorial staff? Appointment rescinded subsequent to a wave of criticism. Little wonder that the media is held in such low esteem. A tremulous retreat follows the slightest deviation from the Party Line.
Why Mr. Remnick gave Bannon the invitation in the first place, that’s the question. Why give voice to racism? What’s to be gained from that?
3
Your observations of Mr. Remnick's disinvitation are trenchant, Mr. Stephens -- and authoritative, too, for you reinforced them all in your column: You've kept Bannon's name prominent. You've used your column to criticize another journalist, which requires only the courage of a social media user (or newspaper comment writer) to do. You've corroborated the corroboration of a[n unattributed] view of the left-wing media; might that view be your "own truths"? Where is the announcement of your TimesTalks interview with Bannon? You may criticize Remnick for lacking courage, but it would be much more powerful to see you displaying some yourself.
5
You missed the mark here, Bret, because you failed to realize Americans' growing abhorrence to propaganda.
Regardless of the truth of what Bannon says, Fox News will use it as a tool of deception and divisiveness. Why on earth would any media outlet give those misleading the American people yet another platform?
The New Yorker was correct in taking Bannon off the marquis. The biggest mistake it made was signing him up in the first place.
5
What this tells me is that Remnick didn't give this enough thought before he invited Bannon, because the reaction is hardly a surprise. I think Remnick let his ego get the better of him, but he might have underestimated Bannon in a debate. The guy is smart, not Trump. Unfortunately his views represent a sizable minority of the population so simply ignoring them isn't really an effective way to neutralize them. They already have plenty of media platforms.
2
This was no capitulation to the blogosphere. It was solid capitalist action: David Remnick cancelled Bannon because he faced having a program consisting of one speaker and no attendees. Simple: follow the money as usual. Bret Stephens should be ecstatic that capitalism works.
Now, why Remnick scheduled Bannon in the first place...
3
I am particularly perplexed that not only journalists, but artists of any stripe -- including entertainers like Apatow and Carrey -- are leading the charge for censorship and against freedom of speech. I don't think I can add anything to Remnick's excellent thesis for why Bannon should have been invited. Most of what Bannon advocates for is unjust, racist and undemocratic, but why make it binary, pitting the First Amendment against "justice"? Without freedom of speech, justice -- particularly racial justice -- doesn't have a chance.
1
@Arnie Weissmann
This is the daily PSA that the First Amendment applies only to the GOVERNMENT censoring speech. The New Yorker and other private companies and citizens are free to censor or not.
1
What a totally fear driven reaction by Remnick.
Take on the other side.
Straight up.
If you are on the right side you should relish the opportunity. Just so weak.
Almost embarrassingly so.
In 2007, the President of Columbia University invited then-Iranian President Ahmadinejad to speak.
In a piece for the WSJ comparing this move to hosting Hitler, Bret Stephens wrote: 'To suggest that such an event amounts to a confrontation, or offers a perspective on reality, is a bit like suggesting that one "confronts" a wild animal by staring at it through its cage at a zoo.'
How standards change.
5
@G Very good point! It suggests Stephens identifies more with Columbia University than he does with the New Yorker, perhaps. Or else that he has learned something from the past and changed course?
1
The answer to speech we don't like has to be more speech. Up to a point. Holocaust deniers? Nope. Flat earthers? Nope. Birthers? Nope. But people who have viewpoints that can be supported by facts? Yes.
A journalist is at her finest taking on someone with whom she disagrees and unmasking them with facts and figures. I wish David Remnick had tried. I wish the liberal universe had shown more backbone, as we challenge those in the trumpverse to do.
3
Good points here.
1
Early-season snowflakes covering the New Yorker offices.
1
I was one of the people who wrote to the New Yorker to protest this particular choice. I have a subscription to the New Yorker, and while I will never have the means to attend this conference, if I did have the money to go, I'd have boycotted the proceedings. The problem for me is that the media largely created the Trump Presidency, and by giving platforms to the people who made sure his Presidency happened, we continue to keep them in the public eye. There have always been racists and wing nuts (obviously), but institutions such as churches, schools, and the press worked diligently to not only educate people, but to keep uneducated ignorant people from having an outsize influence on our society. Trump, and the people who helped elect him (none more responsible than the troll, Bannon) are not fit for a stage such as this one. If half your invited speaking attendees refuse to participate, that tells you something. It tells you that you made a mistake. Who's next, by the way? David Duke? Remnick could certainly have found a better platform to interview Bannon than this conference, if he feels compelled to do so.
2
The New Yorker should interview Bannon. The mistake was Remnick's in thinking that the right forum for this was a public event, implying that Bannon is on a par with others whose views can be taken seriously. He should have invited Bannon — and still should — for a solo interview in private.
1
Will there be an attendee at this gathering to point out that the only thin reed separation of church and state stands upon in the US is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"?
When people like Bannon complain of being shut out of debates, I think they have no idea how coddled they are.
1
The author is absolutely right. But he doesn't mention the even greater outrage that ensues when Fox News does the same, or would ensue if it ever did.
1
The 1st Amendment applies to the government, its the government that can't restrict speech. I must have missed it when the New Yorker became part of the government. The New Yorker has the right to invite or dis-invite anyone they choose. Everyone has the right to subscribe or not subscribe to the New Yorker. Don't like what the New Yorker did? Don't buy it.
3
Somewhere on YouTube there's a video of William F. Buckley interviewing Allen Ginsberg, who proceeds to recite a poem he wrote under the influence of LSD. Not only is this spectacle hilarious, but it also reflects a time when opposite viewpoints gleefully engaged one another and may the best man win. Unfortunately, that time seems to have passed. Fox News is Fox News and MSNBC is MSNBC, and never the twain shall meet.
139
@Some Tired Old Liberal has hit the nail on the head. Obviously, this is the problem today with all of us, starting with the Congress that won't discuss anything across the aisle and a president who plays only to his "base", whatever that is.
Are we really that afraid to talk to each other and what will happen if we don't? I shudder to think.
@Some Tired Old Liberal
Sorry, not even remotely analogous.
2
Those two networks are not equivalent. MSNBC is attached to a real newsgathering organization that operates bureaus worldwide, breaks stories, and conducts investigations.
Fox is a news-talk channel. Nothing like NBC News exists at Fox.
If you think they're equivalent, they've rolled you.
Don't be owned. Don't be complicit. Watch. Your. Language.
1
Bannon is a known quantity. Giving him a larger soapbox or a louder microphone lends credibility to his speech. The mistake here was to invite him in the first place. Let him rant in the wilderness.
114
He may well be, but when is he challenged?@Bob Savage
@Bob Savage
If he is a known quantity, and lacking all credibility, then you are conceding that the half of America that elected Trump lacks credibility, and is in some sense irredeemable, dare I say "deplorable". What is your solution to that problem? I do not believe that America is irredeemable. I do believe that discussing our differences is the best way to reach a resolution. In contrast, there is nothing to be gained by hurling insults across a chasm, which seems to be the alternative.
@Bob Savage: Mr. Bannon's credibility could easily have been punctured by tough questioning. Trump deliberately avoids interviews by broadcasters other than Fox News to try to control the narrative about him. Bannon agreed to enter the liberals' lion's den for questioning, but the liberals turned out not to be lions, but mice.
Fantastic that Brett Stephens had the courage to call a spade a spade. Remnick came off looking really weak. Who rescinds an invitation?
2
Well said ... journalists have done more to damage their credibility than Trump has. Voltaire words are a distant echo in a room of weasels.
3
The invitation was a mistake. We all know who Bannon is and what he beleives and represents. Nothing new. Both Wallace and Khomeini on the other hand needed exposure each for a different reason.
1
Let me be civil. I have loved The New Yorker for 40 years. I subscribed.
I trusted.
Now, I quit.
1
Several commentators here support Bannon's expulsion on the grounds that his ideas are not debatable--that giving him a forum would "normalize his hate speech." I've got news for them: His ideas have already been normalized. Did you not see Bannon and Trump in the White House? Sanctimonious self-righteousness never won a debate.
2
what in heaven's name is happening to the
left? universities ban conservative speakers,
tv news either bans conservative voices
altogether or treats them with utter disrespect,
and now the New Yorker(and recently the Atlantic,with another writer) cave in to the likes of Jim Carrey(when was the last time you heard of him?)and overrated mediocrities like Judd Appatow.I am a Democrat and have rarely voted for Republicans, but this liberal cowardice is
really beginning to get to me. tolerance for
other voices is the American way and the
left is more and more perverting it.
3
@Frank
It's not universities who ban conservative speakers. Students do. They protest enough to create fear of violence and the universities dis invite speakers. The kids pay their bills, the universities like money. I see it as fine capitalism playing out. Is it really dis heartening that Milo whatshisname didn't get his chance to speak at Berkeley? Feigned outrage by the conservatives. Nobody is poorer for not hearing the words of an average carnival barker. The Kids are alright, and good for them to voice their opinion and create...change.
I'm shocked... SHOCKED!!! that someone that has never been on the receiving end of Bannon's brand of virulent racism would fail to understand why offering a platform for such views constitutes supporting those views. I watched this process play out on Twitter and the fact is, the New Yorker reversed course not because of "the Twitter mob" but because other participants (that had not been notified of Bannon's inclusion and keynote position) chose to withdraw, as is their right.
Here's an idea for all the "New York liberal progressives" for whom racism is just another topic parlor conversation: rather than pore over the musings of the folks that are trying to kill us, provide platforms for the Stacey Abrams, Ayanna Pressleys and Andrew Gillums that are trying to find practical and strategic ways to drag this country in the direction of racial justice?
10
I suspect the people who pulled out of the New Yorker Festival did so because they knew there would be no point in wasting their breathe on Steve Bannon. Bannon views himself as a messiah, a teacher, someone who has a special power to guide non-believers toward the path of extreme nationalism. He is not someone who will bend as he is the light, the all-knowing intellectual who would have been there as a superior, not as an equal.
Remnick didn't bow to Twitter, he listened, then corrected his mistake.
6
That the American people are increasingly held hostage by a verbally, and at times physically, abusive mob of progressives is obvious to many of us.That the media has become hostage, perhaps even by choice, to the violent, speech-suppressive zeitgeist is no less obvious. And just yesterday the senate hearing on Justice Kavanaugh's appointment has to be adjourned because it was hijacked by a mob - some say paid – of screaming Code Pink and similar progressive activists. And saddest of all was to see pusillanimous liberal senators saying the adjournment was because of some missing documents. So the real question is why did someone with at least residual decency like Bret Stephens allow himself to be corralled into this media miasma in order to serve its purposes as a token non-liberal anti-Trump media star? Doesn't he understand that he is playing right into the hands of the very people he so nobly protests in today's column?
I am a The New Yorker subscriber who fully agrees with Mr. Stephens’s upbraiding of the magazine and its less-than-fearless leader. As a journalist, I recognize the three fundamental tools of my profession are reporting, writing, and editing. Rare is the journo who excels in all three. I’ve always felt Mr Remnick was a decidedly better reporter and writer than editor, the latter measured, in part, by making tough managerial decisions, often in the face of backlash from your staff or from your readership. The editor’s waving of the white flag in this matter accomplishes little other than validating the stereotypical perceptions about liberal media that Mr. Stephens enumerates. When being liberal becomes synonymous with being smugly incurious and proudly intolerant of other viewpoints, no matter how odioius they may seem, it’s enough to make even the likes of middle-of-the-road liberals like me lean more socially conservative in such matters.
1
The comments in this case were very enlightening. Two things are clear to me:
1. No, they never should have invited Bannon to this festival in the first place, because you just don't pay a guy like Mr. Bannon. You interview him. You write about him. You may even give him opportunities to speak in public, but you do NOT pay him.
2. Once he was invited and you made that relatively distasteful decision, you most certainly do NOT cancel because of Twitter, especially when you've made the invitation in the name of journalism. Mr. Stephens is completely correct in illustrating how empowering this now is for Mr. Bannon. It was bad enough you agreed to pay the guy, but then to uninvite him. I wonder if they had to pay him anyway. Bet we'll see that check on the internets.
5
Unless the ‘left’ becomes comfortable with the interview style of Fox, this is going to continue to happen. No one believes any journalist will attack Bannon, not just for his lies, but for his very core beliefs, because we know his beliefs are un-American and dangerous. Allowing him to espouse those beliefs as though they are reasonable, useful, or shared by more than a tiny minority, gives him and his un-American beliefs a veneer of acceptability that should never be given.
I’m sorry that so many progressives and liberals understand this about todays environment, but until our media is willing to publicly call them out as bigots, misogynists, and un-American, we cannot allow any of you to provide the right with just another platform from which to spread their hate and lies.
3
Freedom of speech isn't always comfortable. It certainly doesn't always have to challenge. Despicable, ignorant, speech is uttered everyday - sometime, 'right' is through the ears of the listener(s).
Bannon, for my money, is racist and a fear monger; inviting, and than pulling, his invitation to this event, was stupid. Let the man speak. I believe that will hasten his departure to the rock he will live under when his brand of hatefulness is assigned to the trash heap of history.
1
I don't see why someone who *openly* reveres and pines for the likes of Julius Evola and the fascist Traditionalist movement (which gave the world Benito Mussolini) should be given any opportunity to speak at a forum that, by its nature, confers a level of legitimacy.
Make no mistake, western democracy is under attack. This is war and no quarter should be afforded the enemy. Bannon is a highly educated version of David Duke. Bannon is better at choosing his words and dressing them up under a cloak of pseudo-intellectualism, that's all.
I'm sorry, but the time for academic niceties has passed.
3
The mistake was Mr. Remnick not consulting his colleagues and staff first to see what they thought of the idea to invite Mr. Bannon. It was a bad idea from the start! Banning doesn’t need yet another platform to spread his dangerous “ideas.” And I don’t care who is doing the interview, demagogues like Bannon always use these opportunities in their favor. I never understood the rationale for interviewing despots and worse and was appalled back when a famous TV journalist was hoping to interview bin Laden! Really! Stop legitimizing these people - whose agenda is hate - including our president! Remnick should take a look at his own narcissistic impulses in this fiasco. Smart people aren’t always smart!
2
“Legitimization” is beside the point. Bannon has the ears of millions already. I would love to see Remnick interview him. I am so disheartened that The New Yorker caved. I would be disappointed to miss Mulaney, Carrey, and Apatow too, but they made the choice for themselves. I don’t want to be protected from obnoxious ideas by them. The other shoe to this is that Bannon will continue to be interviewed by sycophantic second-raters, where he goes unchallenged. I hate to crack on Remnick but he should have said “See ya,” to the celebs and staffers who threatened to walk. That’s the price of free speech, principle, and ethics. We do not win by becoming like Bannon and the abhorrent horde who ultimately want to say who can and who can’t speak. Honestly, Remnick is probably looking to cut his losses in the court of public opinion. But sometimes, the lumps are worth taking. No good comes of this blackmail.
1
No, Mr. Stephens. The mistake is normalizing extremists and neo-fascists. The mistake is including such violent ideologies based on racism and white supremacy in the spectrum of intellectual diversity. I’m glad Remnick changed his mind. I hope he did so for the right reasons.
3
You don’t get to exclude any viewpoint or ideology from the spectrum of intellectual diversity and still claim to believe in a liberal ideal. Censorship is censorship, and your viewpoint is no better than the Chinese removing democratic voices under the flag of “social harmony.”
1
The mistake was made when the New Yorker decided to interview Bannon at a “festival.”
I have zero problem with interviewing Bannon, but in the palsy-walsy confines of a “festival” it smacks of the access journalism we have grown to loathe, where reporters wear kid gloves and do a jovial post-game review at the next cocktail party with the subject of their “tough” interview.
You don’t interview a slug at a festival and if reporters were really asking critical questions and making enemies of those in power (as they should) they wouldn’t need to be told that.
1
Redemption for one of my few remaining heroes, David Remnick, can only come in the form of an immediate rescheduling of a very public interview of Steve Bannon. The choice of the Festival was most likely ill-considered in the first place. Fine. But the cancellation has to be corrected.
The fall-out from Remnick's simply not sitting down with Bannon will have too many aftershocks in a world in which the integrity of traditional journalism is daily called into question.
Send out that invitation to Bannon today, please!!
As usual, Bret gets it wrong. Giving prominence to an evil, nihilistic, propandistic voice like Bannon's has nothing to do with courageous journalism. The New Yorker was right to rescind the offer.
3
@UARollnGuy - with your logic, we never interview people who don't share our values (Putin, Kim, Xi, Farrakhan, etc.) So much for exposing vile ideas to sunlight. Why even interview Judge Kavanaugh, after all, Democrats think he is evil.
1
As a long time subscriber to NYer I agree that this was a cowardly act worthy of Fox and friends. Maybe the far right has it correct about the liberal press.
1
I have subscribed to the mag for years, thinking I was getting relatively unbiased reportage. This cancellation calls that into question. Bad on the face of it. Worse for what it says about what winds up published there in the future, if Remnick is beholden to the mob (left or right). So, if I have a spine, do I need to cancel?
2
"Or: Some congressional Republicans understand that the tax bill will increase the deficit, but they lack the courage to resist their donor base."
Or Schumer and Pelosi knew Obama lied his way into Harvard and was channeling Reverend Wright in the Oval Office but "lack the courage" to confront him?
Progressive sanctimony and intimidation has reached such a fevered pitch in universities, the media, and among the cultural elite that I will never respect any of them again.
1
@Grunt
So does that mean you respect viscious and sanctimonious right-wing media outlets like Breitbart and FOX?
Good Luck with that.
1
To say I'm disappointed in the New Yorker is an understatement. I've been a reader for some 50 years; and never before has the magazine been called for cowardice.
Now I have to consider whether I will renew
my subscription.
1
The essential principle of a democracy is in John Dewey's words, its ability to provide a welcoming home for a "marketplace of ideas." Any public or institutional tool that constrains that marketplace does grave harm to democratic values. Now, it should be noted, that Dewey went on to say, that the ideas that flow in an out of this market should be subjected to thoughtful discussion---which in turn, if conducted intelligently, would naturally edit out those ideas that were unworkable or crossed moral/ethical boundaries. Of course Dewey also assumed that the primary goal of our nation's public school system was preparing young people to participate intelligently in this marketplace of ideas---which, as a former educator, is now the achilles heel of our democracy.
2
Thank you for the excellent and nuanced article that illuminates the limits to a kind of liberal arrogance that has flourished, unchecked, within certain types of institutions. I'd say this directly to The New Yorker but the venerable institution discourages direct contact, such as comments, with its paying subscribers, which includes me. Twould disrupt the echo chamber effect, I imagine.
2
Let's focus for a moment on the notably widespread use of the word "legitimize" in commentary that opposes "giving a platform" to Bannon and other villains of the Right. It joins the word "problematic" in the canon, and it has to do with silencing people whom we hold in contempt. More whimsically, we often bring bring in references to "Flat Earthers" as well, as though they could be a significant force in contemporary society.
The point is, we don't "legitimize" points of view which already have a major following when we take them on. We refute them because they are already legitimate to a significant proportion of the population. The lofty resolution to refuse to "legitimize" anti-vaccine forces with debate has greatly assisted them in becoming a major and increasing threat to public health.
But I suspect that the denial of platforms and opposition to legitimizing the problematic actually have more to do with a fundamental preference for dealing with viewpoints that are contrary to one's own and to accepted doctrine by silencing them.
5
Bannon is not a critical thinker, and his arguments are poorly reasoned. He did not deserve an invitation on those bases, as well as others. I was appalled at the inappropriate use of the phrase “speaking truth to power,” as if people on social media are the problem.
3
So much for The New Yorker. Self-righteous cowardice is a rotten combo. But an award here, for tarnishing a brand so spectacularly. Welcome to the mob rule of tiny people tapping out their characters of perfectly protected pointless indignation, and people in power just plain cowering and caving.
2
Mr. Stephens, 'Free Speech' always and forever.
Providing gratis a tower upon which a malevolent human may espouse their hate - never a useful behavior.
2
I agree with Bret that we should not allow the court of public opinion to dictate speech and thought. But Mr. Remnick could have invited not as the highlight of the event, but as just another panelist, perhaps even the last speaker of the event. I think the problem here is you are giving top billing to white supremacy. Sort of lowers you to the journalistic equivalency of "Baby Born With Three Heads" at the grocery check out line. Just because Bannon is available and controversial doesn't mean you have to make him a star. And then keep treating him as one. There is another way to have handled this. Let him come and when Remnick saw there was no audience to hear him or his readerrship declined, the message would have been sent. Even with greater impact.
Bye Bye Miss American Pie. The New Yorker has just killed the Free Press. I don’t like Trump. I don’t like Bannon. But the Free Press shouldn’t care. The Free Press is not a popularity contest like so many TV entertainment news shows that depend on ratings for survival. The Free Press goes forth in poverty, if necessary. In The New Yorker’s case, it appears journalism is a career, a money making career. In contrast, a profession is a calling and transcends every form of conceivable threats. I dare say, if our country devolves into a civil war, I’d expect our journalists to lay down their lives for the sake of the Freedom of the Press. Trump has succeeded in dividing this country into two camps that both refuse to abide by the Constitution. One of those camps just killed the First Amendment. God help The New Yorker.
2
@Nancy
One of the checks on the free press is the pressure than can be brought by readers and subscribers. The recent O'Reilly and other Fox cases are an example. Don't blame the New Yorker.
i've been reading the new yorker for nearly 70 years.
i feel betrayed.
3
Yesterday, when I first learned of Bannon's invitation to the festival on Twitter, I "liked" a post that expressed outrage about it. What I did not know is that the nature of Bannon's appearance was going to be as an interviewee. I had jumped to the conclusion that Bannon would be allowed to stand at a podium and make a speech and that the audience might be composed of people who had paid to come and hear that speech. The difference is critical. Perhaps this is an example of how so much of the mob outrage on Twitter is based on not taking the time to understand the details--read the article, consider the source--before expressing an opinion or passing that opinion along. People who know all the facts--like Remnick in this case--should stick to their guns and have the courage that the truth will out in the end.
3
The only mistake was extending an invitation in the first place. Bannon isn’t saying anything new—we’ve seen all of of this play out before in the 30s and 40s to the tune of 60 million deaths and decades of rebuilding. Bannon is just the latest False Prophet of Hate craving a microphone, stage, and a veneer of credibility. The New Yorker was foolish to offer him such things.
Stephens’s argument that Twitter now edits the New Yorker is silly. Companies respond to public feedback all the time. Particularly when an ill-advised decision triggers a tsunami of justifiable outrage. Spare us the handwringing.
5
Sorry to miss that interview. It would have been a most interesting discussion in these interesting times.
3
Exactly on point, Mr. Stephens. Bannon, in my opinion, is a horrible person, one whose hateful and dangerous rhetoric should be challenged in a public forum where he cannot control the conversation and jump on and off the record. For the New Yorker to cave to Twitter petulance is disgraceful and an abdication of the most fundamental journalistic principles.
4
Would Mr. Stephens say that the Parkland father who introduced himself, uninvited, to judge Kavanaugh this morning, also represents something called "the digital mob"? I wouldn't.
I also think some of the most effective journalism about the inner workings of the Trump administration have been Michael Wolff's, and now apparently Bob Woodward's accounts, based entirely on uncredited, off-the-record conversations. It's not the classic "confrontational" style of an Edward R. Murrow when he took down Joseph McCarthy.
In fact, Bannon is currently in Venice, Italy, where he's attending the premier of a documentary about himself, purportedly based on a series of sit-down interviews, in which he's asked all the hard questions that Mr. Remnick proposes.
Then Bannon is off to the Tornonto Film Festival and finally the New York Film Festival, which may be why his appearance at the New Yorker festival has been two months in the making.
You forgot to mention that besides the people in the film industry who threatened to boycott, it was reported in the Times that the writer Roxanne Gay didn't threaten, but "announced that she would no longer be writing an in-progress essay that had been commissioned by the magazine." That's gotta hurt.
I think Mr. Remnick had his little bottom spanked a bright red today. It's a good thing.
2
In many ways, Twitter has taken the place of writing a letter, or even email to the editor. It’s more expedient and presumably the tweeter receives feedback immediately as compared to traditional forms of communication. To compare this to mob rule is a stretch of the imagination and turns a blind eye to how information is delivered in this digital age. Any editor or owner of media who receives an outpouring of support or lack thereof from readers via any means of delivery should considered it.
NYT’s readers comment here because we know most of our comments are posted within in minutes, sometimes hours. How many still write a letter to the editor and then wait to see if it makes it into print? I don’t. How many comment here because we like the discourse? I do.
Perhaps Steve Bannon is worthy of the original invitation precisely because he’s a controversial polarizing figure. Or maybe an interview with him is more appropriate to a special issue about politics in America.
My opinion, Bannon already has free reign to peddle his divisive hate speech on Fox and Breitbart. Why allot him more?
2
There are voices that deserve to be silenced. History is littered with those villains.
3
By "Twitter" you clearly mean public opinion. Twitter is simply a communications tool.
The New Yorker was responding to public opinion and the strong influence of other scheduled speakers. Not a problem.
3
David Remnick has a weekly radio show that's widely heard. Why doesn't he take his tough questions to that venue? He'd still achieve his goal and not be seen as cracking to his critics. Bannon wouldn't be able to grandstand. He wouldn't cause an uproar in the crowd. It would be a place for Remnick to achieve what he promised, but at a less obvious venue.
1
Notwithstanding the clear appearance of having caved to Twitter and staff sentiment against a Bannon presence at the New Yorker conference, the bigger issue is that Remnick squandered any pretense, let alone claim, he had regarding leadership of the publication.
There are, no doubt, arguments both for and against allowing the likes of Bannon to participate in the conference. But what Remnick has done is allowed others to set the agenda in a defining moment, rather than standing up for the legitimate role of the news media in furthering, not stifling, debate. He has enabled those on the rabid right to further its claims, with some reason, about the MSM's obeisance to liberal, and only liberal points of view.
Sadly, for Remnick, the damage is done. One can certainly argue that actually paying Bannon to spout his venom was an objectionable mistake, but Remnick may end up paying the bigger price himself, while Bannon no doubt will live to fight, and earn, another day in the media sunshine.
1
There is no moral equivalence between Steve Bannon and Cynthia Nixon. Remnick, whom I like and admire, momentarily lost his moral compass. His friends helped him find it.
3
I daresay that very few, if any, people are undecided about Mr. Bannon. Either he's the devil, or the last hope for a disappearing "great" America.
Does anyone seriously think that, in a New Yorker interview, Mr. Bannon would add one scintilla of nuance to the bilge that he continually spews? Is any audience member or reader going to gain one iota of insight?
I suppose an argument could be made that withdrawing Mr. Bannon's invitation at this point is a mistake, but I don't think it really matters.
In Mr. Bannon's politics, he's already won by securing the invitation in the first place. Letting him speak or withdrawing his invitation both provide him with a pretext for generating the outrage he delights in, while utterly failing to move the underlying debate one micron forward towards civil discourse.
1
Correct.
Friends close, enemies closer.
thank you.
1
The New Yorker, seeking new revenue as well expanded reach and relevance, created an entertainment they call a festival that involves people appearing on a stage. This is different from publishing a magazine because while one rarely can withdraw from a magazine over a disagreement with another story, one can decide not to show up to share an event with someone he or she finds objectionable. But that’s show biz.
Mr. Remnick’s retreat from the stage to interview Mr. Bannon for the magazine may be seen as a welcome return to journalism.
3
If artificial intelligence were tasked with controlling humanity, how would it do it?
This is precisely how. It would use the same traits that make humans so collaborative against us. Bannon probably understands this better than anyone.
How is it that the most spectacularly wrong things keep happening?
The thing about AI is that it creeps into your life without a lot of notice and just becomes a tool. The autocorrect function on my iPhone is either really helpful or really laughable. But it goes way deeper than that. We don't know how it will use what it learns.
Not long ago, artificial intelligence defeated the world's best players of Go. The thing was, according to news reports, none of the way the AI did so made a lot of conventional sense.
If you look at the Times article about real vs. fake on Facebook, there is so little difference that you wonder what about the fake is so much more appealing than the real. The answer is that it's not. Machine intelligence can be far more patient than humans.
I am truly saddened by Remnick's decision, and it seems too spectacularly bad to be true. Did he make the decision? Sure. We need to look more carefully at why, and what really happened.
Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon—they're all developing these AI systems because they are convinced they are better. The arrogance is breathtaking.
If we are to have a truly free and open society, then we need to think about how AI may control us.
1
Stephens calls Bannon a "nativist bigot" here. Apparently Bannon's ideas are sufficiently well-known for Stephens to make this judgement, and if so, I wonder why there is some journalistic imperative for the New Yorker to have aired-out Bannon's views even further.
Stephens goes on to consider some of the possible fallout from the disinvitation of Bannon, and he makes some good points. However he does shows a certain bias: "our side just wants to be rationally self-interested and profit (and this is good), but your side needs to be consistent and moral even if against their self-interest" (liberals have this bias against conservatives as well, although I suspect they disguise it better).
In order to claim censorship by the mob, Stephens needs to demonstrate that the New Yorker went against its financial interests. If -- based on Twitter reaction -- they decided that a Bannon interview would lose money, and that his disinvitation, though odious, was the best course for their brand, this does not qualify as censorship. At worst it would be a sign of their using Twitter too seriously as a barometer of the behavior of their advertisers and readers. Journalistic integrity is of secondary concern to competing in the marketplace.
The balance between ethics and profit is important and dynamic, and Stephens does not make the case one way or the other about the motivation for the New Yorker's decision. (Nor is he privy to the reaction of advertisers in the New Yorker).
And it has even made a sham of a democratic process, if that is what Twitter is supposed to approximate, allowing a few shrill voices to dictate an outcome that may not have been desired by The New Yorker’s broader constituency.
3
David Remnick, no less than Jeff Sessions, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and Mitch McConnell, has succumbed to the temptation to try to make use of a moral wreck to advance his own agenda. No one, no one at all, is confused about who people like DJT and SB are: they do not retain their power and influence because they deceive people. They do so because they convince others that there's enough in it for them personally to look the other way. Each will have some apparently principled explanation for their actions. That, in fact, is the 'the deal.'
All this will end not when people summon up courage or wake up to the truth; it will end when they no longer believe that they can get something they want by putting up with it.
2
Once again, the opinion of an essentially anonymous subset of the population rules the day, No wonder our adversaries use social media to roil the mob, turn us against each other and influence opinion and elections. It has proven so successful. And don’t get me going on the subject of subordinates publicly chastising a boss, with no repercussions. We are raising generations of people who don’t believe in order, structure, the value of experience and process at work or almost anywhere else. Throughout their lives they have been told they are special, told how smart they are and believe it. It does not bode well.
5
I do not agree with what Mr. Remnick did, but at some level it is understandable. And it is easy for me, at this distance and sitting in my chair, to criticize his judgement. Those publications who are involved in the presentation of the news to the public have long been subject to a race for ratings. They have always been influenced by what their readers and advertisers think.
Given how this unfolded, would it have been better to cancel the entire program, or let Bannon speak and deal with the loss of the other speakers (if they made good on their threat)? We cannot know.
As righteous as I would like to be, I am not sure what I would have done. Social media is as much the villain as Mr. Remnick, and that is also part of Mr. Stephens point. The more we see episodes where quick-tempered public censorship can be generated with social media, the more we should be convinced that Twitter is every bit as much a problem--or more--than the acutely pressured judgement of a magazine editor: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/antisocial-media-9780190841164?c... .
2
I see this happen more and more where social media dictates the norms. Mr. Stephens is right, where does this stop? The media is an independent entity barring some, whose job it is to present all views. The liberals are becoming as intolerant as the people on the right. Open discourse is dying and people like me keep waiting for the pendulum to swing back to normal. But when?
5
Mr. Stephens is correct in my opinion. The best way to counter Bannon is to hear his opinions and debate them calmly with evidence. Not letting him speak gives Bannon power, because he will find other platforms that do not care about evidence. This is not necessarily a question of Twitter, but of the value of academic and journalistic pursuits. Readers and listeners should not be scared of opinions that they don't agree with, but of opinions they don't agree with that they cannot counter with evidence.
6
The problem with debating baseless evil and destructive ideas is that you give them credence and elevate their standing. You do not convince the person holding those ideas that they are wrong by your thoughtful prose, you end up amplifying wrong headed ideas and often introducing them to new people. You don’t eradicate cancer by entertaining it. Bannon and his ilk’s worldview will not be disinfected by sunlight. History has for example shown that the Klan’s membership was amplified by coverage of it from this very paper and other papers of its era who even went as far a publishing the membership application to, in their editors minds, demonstrate its absurdity. Instead what happened is they boosted membership. Must we learn the same things again? This both sides approach to journalism in the guise of fairness is grotesque. When we know wrong we can claim a higher ground, the wrong side does not have to be heard.
1
@Kae H: "The problem with debating baseless evil and destructive ideas is that you give them credence and elevate their standing."
No, you don't. A skilled interviewer can expose them as baseless, evil, and destructive, if that is indeed what they are.
1
C'mon, wasn't this just a marketing decision? That Twitter was the medium for assessing the possible damage seems irrelevant to a business decision. For those who are offended by removing a platform for this ruthless alt-right promoter, let's remember the New Yorker is not the government and this is not about the 1st Amendment. David Remnick may look bad for awhile, more for the initial invitation than the withdrawal, but saving face is not all there is to publishing a readers' magazine in a digital era.
3
The next New Yorker caption contest should feature a drawing of David Remnick and Steve Bannon facing each other, sitting in chairs. Mr. Remnick has crossed legs, a notepad on his knee. They are on a small desert island.
“Sorry for the inconvenience, Steve, but I can’t upset our readers.”
6
Remnick made a mistake in inviting Bannon.
The "mob", or in this case, rational people, called it out and rightly so.
I am not part of the twitter universe, but was very dismayed by his original invitation, and I'm so glad he was dis-invited.
7
Nonsense!
Granted that this may be a two wrongs don't make one right scenario but Bannon is just an opportunist capitalizing on other people's ignorance and weakness.
Like Alex Jones and others, the media have made him bigger than he really is and the consumers of media just want to put him where he should be: media oblivion after 15 minutes of fame
9
The power of Twitter (and other social media as well) is to provoke controversy and crisis. Donald Trump has realized the power of Twitter instinctively and used it effectively, day after day. The New Yorker, the Times and other media outlets need to learn that the way to deal with Twitter is to cover the the news and the politics, not Twitter.
2
I agree with Mr. Stephens that the New Yorker should not have disinvited Mr. Bannon. But for context, he should have noted that such disinvitations are now frequent: for example the Conservative Political Action Conference disinvited Milo Yiannopoulos on 20 February 2017
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/320358-milo-yiannopouli...
Mr. Stephens rightly condemns liberals for lacking courage, but gives conservatives a pass.
6
Remnick needed to employ a "sunk cost" evaluation of his (the New Yorker's) situation. Once it became news that he'd invited Bannon, the New Yorker paid a "price" (a cost to its brand) that it wasn't ever going to recover. At that point he needed to consider and then compare only what additional prices the New Yorker was going to pay by cancelling (and martyring) or by continuing (and exposing). His accounting was flawed.
6
Twitter is just another form of communication, obviously.
What difference does it make HOW Mr. Remnick's mind was changed, whether it comes from Twitter, or a letter?
Bret indulges in superficial analysis.
Remnick realized his mistake, then reversed course. This is refreshing, but I question his original "judgment." He should resign. He's seems out of his depth.
7
@David Henry
Nonsense. Remnick has increased circulation, successfully moved the magazine into the digital age, and made the New Yorker profitable. (It was bleeding money when he took over as editor.). You may disagree with his decisions in this instance. But to claim he’s “out of his depth” is ridiculous.
5
@NA
He just proved his incompetence.
Stephens overlooks an essential truth when listing all the things that Remnick's disinvitation of Bannon achieved. Almost every one of them are things that Trumpsters already believe about the main-stream media. Giving Bannon credibility and legitimizing him by inviting him to the New Yorker Festival would do nothing to increase the esteem for the New Yorker in the eyes of Trumpsters but it would do a great deal to raise the profile of Bannon even further while conferring legitimacy on his world view and and helping to normalize it.
In addition to this, Remnick specifically stated in his email to the staff announcing the rescinding of the invitation to Bannon that he still intends to interview Bannon but in a context more appropriate for such an interview: not as part of the New Yorker Festival. So to characterize the disinvitation as a wholesale capitulation to "the mob" is not accurate.
Finally, although social media certainly amplify popular feeling, the reaction of the public has always influenced editors. But, in the past, the public mood was expressed in not buying editions of the publication, in letters and in boycotts. No editor of a for-profit publication can ignore the popular sentiment of its staff and readership, particularly on a matter of such importance as the normalization of neo-fascism and white nationalism.
30
Isn't the definition of journalism writing? I don't understand how interviewing Bannon in front of a live audience counts as investigative journalism. Remnick seemed to think he could elicit a genuinely nuanced or somehow more revealing version of Steve Bannon than the one the public has already been made privy to simply by asking the magically right questions, something I highly doubt could happen. I believe The New Yorker wanted to sell tickets and court controversy on this one. Steven Bannon could have been a bigger draw than say, Emily Blunt. It just so happened that he wasn't. Being against Steven Bannon being interviewed live on stage at The New Yorker festival does not mean that I live in an echo chamber and only imbibe articles written by liberal elitists that appear in The New Yorker. It's easy to criticize social media for being too powerful and its victims too weak to stand up to it. Perhaps as an editor Remnick should have shunned the criticism, but not so easy to do when other festival invitees are ditching you right and left. It probably was a simple money thing, in the end. As for Bannon beling gleeful or vindictive about it, he would have been even if the interview had gone on as scheduled. The game people like him play doesn't involve losing face.
17
Is there a pale? Are some people beyond the pale? Is Bannon one of them?
There used to be a pale about JFK's sexual escapades. Anyone who mentioned them was not a serious journalist, but rather a National Enquirer type. It is probably beyond the pale to call Lindsey Graham gay. It used to be beyond the pale to suggest that a current war of ours was not worth fighting; the Smothers Brothers and Bill Maher discovered that there was a pale. When Life Magazine ran a cover with pictures of dead American soldiers, the country decided that the boundaries of the pale had to be expanded; if Life had done this even a few months earlier, the boundaries of the pale would have stood and Life would have torpedoed its profitability or more.
We have developed two pales with very little in common. The last time we did this we had a civil war. Suggesting that the Holocaust did not happen is beyond the pale. Suggesting that Obama was not born in this country should have been beyond the pale, but it wasnt. It is usually beyond the pale to suggest that the Emperor is naked, but he often is.
12
@sdavidc9, Have you seen the videos with layers on BO'S birth certificate on the gov site? Is it not "beyond the pale" for that to be a reality and not only are people not meant to question it, but then you getting indignant? Imagine if this were DJT in the same situation. When you go on like that it looks worse. People have not forgotten, no matter how many times you act offended. Wow!
@sdavidc9
"Is there a pale? Are some people beyond the pale? Is Bannon one of them?"
Yes.
(Good post.)
I agree with you in principle, Bret, wholeheatedly, but I think you're mistaken about Remnick and the New Yorker. In this case, it was the venue that was the issue, not whether to interview Bannon, which Remnick intends to do in the regular pages of the magazine. In that, I think he was right.
10
Oh come on. Anyone who would make such an argument has never worked for a local newspaper. Publications have ALWAYS been responsive to the protests of their readership. Usually, that meant they were responsive to their *advertisers*. At least in this case, Remnick was responding to actual readers.
18
Honestly, Bannon's stances are already publicly accessible an interview with him wouldn't have added much.
That said, I agree with the sentiment that if you invite someone to an interview you should never cave to social media pressure to "uninvite" them. An invitation should be well thought out ahead of time, and sent with 100% confidence that it is the correct decision.
Giving into social media pressure is a cowardly act, it undercuts not only the value of your position but it undercuts the value of editorial decisions entirely.
The only time social media has a place in such a decision is before the invite is sent out. After its sent, stick to your guns. The social media mob will eventually forget the whole debacle either way, but future interviewees and your loyal readership won't forget that how you caved and devalued yourself, your honor and their time.
3
Kudos to David Remnick. It took more courage to de-platform Bannon than keeping him. Anything Bannon has to say has already been said in countless articles that are easily accessed by Google.
Why should/would liberals want to waste our time and energy listening to Bannon and his bigoted drivel, when new and fresh thinkers are out there deserving of a platform? De-platforming Alex Jones and Milo Yiannopoulos has curbed them more than people hoped, allowing room for people with opinions, both liberal and conservative, that are worth listening to, without having to wade through conspiracy and garbage theories first. That's not an echo chamber - it's a thoughtful chamber.
I'm glad David Remnick listened when people told him he was wrong. Not many people will actually do that and I admire him even more for it.
26
I abhor Steve Bannon and everything he stands for. And despite his recent setbacks, he's still more dangerous than many people realize.
But that having been said ... why do we attribute such superhuman powers to this man that he must be "deplatformed"?
Why do we show such panic and cowardice (thinly cloaked in righteous indignation) at the mere thought of Bannon appearing in a forum like the New Yorker Festival that, in fact, would have been highly hostile to him?
Why do we fear a unique situation in which Bannon would have been examined -- and challenged --by David Remnick, one of the finest journalists of our time?
Do we really think that new audiences would have become infected by Bannon? Why do we accuse the New Yorker of offering Steve Bannon a platform, when it was trying to put him on the lab bench?
If we put Ebola virus under a microscope to study it and find a cure, does that legitimize it?
13
@Richard, collateral damage on the road to silencing dissent.
I agree with you entirely. I'm disheartened yet again. Society lived fine without Twitter; now it may die by it.
6
This was a good decision. Just imagine if Bannon had given the secret “okay” hand signal at this event, like that woman from the Kavanaugh hearing did.
If he had done this, it wouldn’t just have impacted the people watching on TV, it would have impacted some of our most elite, influential, and impressionable minds. And even if only one or two of them had been influenced by such trickery, the damage done would have been tenfold. Because these aren’t just people and this isn’t just some event, it was a Festival of Ideas, hosted by the New Yorker.
This was a really wise move! Many thanks to all of the brave ones who stopped this from happening!
12
the argument here, while at times legitimate, is flattened by suggesting everyone at the New Yorker is a "journalist." Many of the New Yorker's writers are there to provide comment and analysis, which is not the same as reporting the news, as you must surely understand.
2
Would the New Yorker help Bannon's reputation by inviting him to a "credible" event, as one reader called it? That seems unlikely, given that he's already achieved international repute.
Would the invitation help him to amplify his message? Perhaps, or perhaps not, depending on how the interview went. It seems unlikely that one interview would make much of a difference either way. Before you jump to the "slippery slope" argument, remember that free speech is one of America's greatest achievements (Putin's Russia is an example of why it matters).
Would the New Yorker damage their own reputation by interviewing Bannon? Is the New Yorker's reputation built on childish intolerance and tribal loyalty, or a willingness to consider alternative points of view in the search for truth and meaning?
Stephens is right. Liberals are angry (with good reason), but being angry does not excuse you from taking responsibility for your own behavior.
7
@G Khn, there's little honesty or personal accountability in the leftist circles, now. Fact. Is anyone listening, that is the messages that get through...this has been a sick game, friend. I am for true understanding and moving forward and the left side is causing a lot of pain and damage. Unfairly. So disappointed.
Looking at the heightened rhetoric on the internet, about everything, but politics especially, I remembered the word, 'logomachy': strife conducted in words. That's the great gift the internet has given us--unending logomachy. Nobody gets punched in the nose by words so no one has any particular incentive to try to bring the battle to an end, but public discussion and political debate have become venomous, all authorities are suspect, all facts are doubted. It's almost impossible to build consensus about anything, nobody needs to compromise, possibilities for agreement wither in an atmosphere of hostility and distrust. Does the entire society have to burn itself down and begin again from the ashes?
1
@Ronald B. Duke, who are the ones who want fair and respectful solutions? Not most of the ones with comments here.
1
Some distinctions:
Bannon was not going to debate Remnick. He's a propagandist, openly proud of manipulating the media. He would have broadcasted his views and made a mockery of Remnick's considerable integrity.
He's not an intellectual but an activist, and that's an incredibly important distinction. He is not on the sidelines. He is pushing evil, unwholesome, work in Europe.
Kudos to David Remnick.
I hope he leads a trend, and that Kellyanne Conway, Corey Lewandoski, Katrina Pearson, and the rest of the Trump propagandists, who monopolize their exposure, and refuse to respond to questions or enter into honest debate, are shunned.
For that matter, it would be good if the press corps boycotted Sarah Huckabee Sanders. She's no better than the others, and there is nothing gained from hearing her lectures to the press.
It is not The New Yorker who should be embarrassed, but those who "enter into debate" with robots of the right, because it brings them high ratings. It is they who are responsible for the current president.
23
Sadly, Remnick had no choice. He probably would have had to resign as editor if he stuck to the original decision, and the festival itself would have imploded. I am saddened and frightened by the power of the power of the online mob. I personally agree with Remnick's reasoning, and I say that as a loyal New Yorker subscriber who is against Bannon's agenda. I am also saddened by the actions of Schulz (whose writing I admire) and how she contributed to mob incitement in this case.
This outcome not only shakes my faith in the unique independence of the magazine but also in how our society has come to operate in controversial situations such as this. It's so much easier to join the righteous outrage than to adopt a measured, reasoned, and nuanced stance, and those who try to do so are drowned out.
13
Someone might point out that Stephens is right "in principle": free speech provides Bannon a "right" to be heard, but Stephens is wrong "in practice" as a New Yorker event of this type is just not the right venue and his presence could only end in chaos.
Mr. Stephens column remains a regular forum for this obvious and avowed "conservative" to provide unwanted advice to liberals. His is not the voice we turn to for objective and enlightened guidance.
15
I think inviting someone to be a headliner at a festival is far from just interviewing someone on a public stage. Why magazines need festivals, I don't know, but I do know that when we have festivals at my school, the headliners are people we're honoring.
7
There is plenty of material available to peruse on Bannon's philosophical outlook, history, raison d'être. I'm not sure losing this opportunity really diminishes his contributions over the long term.
It does, however, diminish his relevance to the here and now. Is that really what should concern us?
1
Thank you, Mr Stephens. Every blue moon a well written and argued piece succeeds to challenge a strongly held belief. And even rarer, cause me to do a 180. This was such an article. Bravo.
PS While I disagree with 80% of your editorials, I deeply appreciate your intellectual integrity.
10
@Robert
Have you ever heard of any conservative organization offering a forum to a leftist polemicist? How many liberals were featured in the Wall Street Journal when Mr. Stephens was an editor there?
Diversity is something conservatives feel that liberals should practice in only one direction--to the right.
1
@Robert Luxenberg: Question, Bob (if I may); why has it taken you so long to do the one eight zero?
I'm a Dem but it's amazing how we keep doing things which make us look illiberal.
We missed a great opportunity by not having Bannon on a stage, in front of a hostile audience, with someone like David Remnick interviewing him.
When you are against someone's political positions, you have to be willing to meet them face to face when presented with the chance.
37
So let me get this straight.
All those commenting that you shouldn't "legitimize" Bannon by giving him a platform—you think his ideas are so appealing that if more people heard them, they would be ineluctably drawn into his sway? They would give up the virtues of freedom and equality for his dark satanic mills?
So it's more intellectually urgent to hear from Judd Apatow and Jim Carrey than from a man who helped elect the worst and potentially most disastrous president in US history? No need to know more about Steve Bannon and how he thinks? Because I certainly don't understand how he thinks. It's easy to dismiss Trump's hateful incoherence, but Bannon is scary for the very reason that he's articulate and educated.
Isn't this sort of like Mike Pence refusing to dine with a woman other than his wife? A person of normal rectitude should have no fear of that; only if you're secretly drawn to the infidelity and don't trust yourself would you worry about it.
So are you that uncertain about the moral and intellectual superiority of your beliefs and their ability to stand up in a contest with potential evil? If your vision of the world is better, why do you doubt its ability to persuade? Who succumbs to Steve Bannon who doesn't already think that way?
Do you think a conversation with David Remnick will endow Bannon with a stature that the election of Trump didn't? I wouldn't let Bannon set foot in my house, but I'd like to see him interrogated.
34
@C Wolfe If you do not yet understand how Steve Bannon thinks, I suggest you brush up on your reading. Steve Bannon has not been shy about blasting his hate from the rooftops and advocating the disintegration of our country. He's been spewing hate and right wing agitprop all over Europe trying to dismantle legitimate nation states. Steve Bannon is a proud fascist and he has made his opinions known far and wide.
2
@JayDee, do you have recommendations beside s the one someone wrote his opinion in? If he is still as you say, it is really really, really hard to find, which should not be with today's technology.
I agree with Bret’s contemptuous pillory of the New Yorker. I’m not so sure that the magazine’s pusillanimous retreat on the Bannon matter was SO dependent on Twitter reactions alone as opposed to the general reaction by the left as expressed through ALL its numerous megaphones, but the contempt was deserved for the action.
Millions of people subscribe, to one extent or another, to Bannon’s views regarding the dangers attendant to a creeping growth of the administrative state in America, and every attempt to throttle the conversation because one side is offended by attacks on its convictions … diminishes us all, and simply exacerbates our ideological polarity. If we can’t find a middle-ground that nobody loves but that almost all can just barely live with – which we forge through discourse and negotiation -- we lose the ability to cohere as a people and may as well get set for First Manassas.
Bret nailed it.
15
The real venue for this discussion should be the New Yorker. And it will be. Journalism is never easy. Bret Stephens called Remnick out and rightly so. Now whether this incident rises to the level of a moral failure will perhaps become clearer in time. What is perfectly clear, is that the right is dancing in celebration.
11
@camusfan I've subscribed to the New Yorker for years, and have read many articles about Bannon and his policies in that magazine for a long time now.
We know enough about the man to understand he needs no new platforms to spew his vitriol. If you want to hear Bannon, Fox and Breitbart provide endless opportunities.
1
Bret Stephens you are way off the mark.
Entertaining Bannon is no different than entertaining climate denialists, creationists and conspiracy pushers. They all have nothing to add to any rational debate or civil discourse. That there is a massive overlap in those groups, well, that is not a coincidence.
16
Unlike many of the airheads on the right, Bannon has some substance. He's from a democratic working class family; he's a veteran who turned against his party when Carter's hostage rescue attempt failed. Bannon was navigating a destroyer which was part of the rescue mission. He also was very successful on Wall Street, earning his promotions unlike the clueless Trump who clearly relied upon his father's connections and riches.
It would have been a very interesting interview. Remnick could easily call out and confront Bannon on his more outlandish ideas. I'm really tired of echo chambers.
10
The "Digital Mob" didn't force Remnick to change his mind. Rather, it was the breathtaking magnitude of his error that forced his hand. And good for him. It took real courage to acknowledge his mistake and to act to rectify it. The cowardly course would have been to stick to his guns.
15
This is how we are getting all muddled up about "balanced news" or the First Amendment. While Steve Bannon has the assumed right to stand on a corner and project his negative opinions about the U.S. government, the rest of us have the right to walk right on by and not give him the time of day. People also have the right to say, "Yeah, I don't want to be on the same stage as him because he espouses truly dangerous, unsubstantiated ideas." He was fired from the Trump White House, for goodness sake! It's not like he was fired from the Library of Congress for reading classical literature on the job. Trump, Bannon, Miller, all the rest of them, are not pinnacles of virtue with great lessons to impart to paying customers attending a New Yorker festival of ideas. They are men who have as their goal the gutting of the American system as we know it. Call them what they are - con men and fools - and move on to people to interview who have actually contributed something substantive or challenged the status quo to find a better world that employs humanity and grace.
14
@Rosemary Galette, interesting take
Oh, please. Come on: what happened to Al Franken, and which side of the aisle led that? I’ve just had it with the false equivalence.
11
I’m pretty shocked The New Yorker caved to political pressure from the Twitter mob. But I guess I can’t blame them after reading all the tweets of invited speakers backing out. It’s a shame really how the left runs away from debate, back inside their echo chamber.
16
@Anya Arisohn
Many will disagree, but I would dispute that The New Yorker is part of "the left." It's a very successful corporate enterprise, with a broad base of readers and writers, some of whom no doubt are of the left, but that says nothing about The New Yorker itself.
1
The mistake was inviting Bannon in the FIRST place...Why would anyone legitimize a white supremist by giving them a platform to espouse their filth? What is Mr. Remnick using for brains? Bannon has his own outlets to spread his hate and bile...There is nothing left to learn about Bannon and his so-called "ideas"...Bannon should be covered with the rock he crawled out from under...You don't invite a skunk to the picnic...
28
David Remnick is spineless. For better and for worse Bannon is a real force in conservative media. He was a formidable presence in the last election. Those reasons alone are sufficient to interview, indeed grill the oily creep.
Instead, Remnick wimps out and allows all of us to be tarred with the same brush: Liberals are cowards, liberals are hypocrites, blah, blah, blah. The editor of the New Yorker certainly is.
30
@Laurence Bachmann Well you certainly agree with the statements of Bannon supporters. Maybe you should look in the mirror. Perhaps more self awareness on your part would be appropriate. I think Remnick was brave to admit his mistake and move quickly to rectify it, despite the predictable outpourings of people such as yourself.
1
The finest fate for Bannon -- and the one that would drive him craziest -- would be for him to be ignored. Let his idiotic, self-serving twaddle fall on resounding silence.
14
Oh please. Bannon is a shallow, childish, publicity-seeking agitator. Save the word "courage" for something important.
27
Thank u Brett!
It never ceases to amaze me how blind and arrogant liberals can be
Let Bannon talk, he will confirm for everyone that he is nuts, a bigot and a racist!
Sunshine is the best disinfectant
13
@Shp, hmmm wonder why they don't want to "shine a light?"
I went thru my old New Yorkers and found at least a dozen articles with Bannon's name in the headline since the 2016 election and several from before that. He was interviewed and allowed to spout his nonsense. I don't see a reason to allow him any more space for his noxious notions than that.
Remnick wasn't really thinking when he invited this neo-fascist to be on stage for a "tough" interview. That kind of thing is just red meat to Bannon and his fellow travelers. When it comes to demagoguery, bigotry and hate, Remnick is no match for Bannon.
Once the invitation was extended, though, there wasn't any graceful way out of it, so all Remnick could do was choose the least worst option. It would have been worse to let the guy demagogue away onstage - he has nothing new to say that he hasn't already said in the pages of The New Yorker and everywhere else. If he isn't news, then what's he doing up there anyway?
Yeah, Remnick made a fool of himself. That will pass. There is no dishonor in admitting you made a mistake to invite a modern-day fascist onto your stage. Fascists have nothing worthwhile to say, and interviewing them is like wrestling a pig - you get covered in pig poo, and the pig loves it.
26
If the New Yorker, the last bastion of liberal, progressive, intelligent, artistic, insightful, poetic, brilliant journalism abandons me I will retire in a catatonic state to Outer Somewhere.
In the meantime ENOUGH of including bigoted, racist, Nazis in civil discourse! Stop! Stop NPR! Stop New Yorker! Stop whomever else I cannot recall. They do not deserve you. These bigots have proven they have nothing to offer us and including them on your roster does not make you fair and balanced. It makes you ridiculous. Get a grip. Resist for heaven’s sake.
22
I can't wait for Mr Stephens to share a stage with Mr Bannon at a paid event organized by the New York Times. That's going to happen, right?
13
good for twitter. white nationalists dont belong in the main stream of things. bannon belongs on the fringe. he should never have made it to the white house. you could propose an interview with rob porter. they are of the same cloth and yet you dont seem inclined. your bias is showing though you hide it well behind fake realism. bannon is a racist and a nihilist. and though they make for awesome character choices in a novel they arent novel enough for the news. they are old hat. worn by those who came before and killed many an innocent.
16
As someone who reads things from the entire spectrum, far right to far left, I liked the idea of Bannon sitting there questioned by Remnick, who would make him look like an idiot.
However, how far should this be stretched? Would it be OK, for Remnick to interview Richard Spencer? David Duke? One of the Charlottesville “Jews will no replace guys? Farrakhan?
4
@Benya Krik
This namesake deserves a better comment.
What a cave by David Remnick. It proves the sad state of journalism today.
9
The unaccountable nihilist Bannon has spread enough poison in this country and lately has taken his message of hatred, violence, exclusion, and intolerance to Europe. The New Yorker perfomed a public service in denying this washed up societal outlaw a platform from which to further spread and attempt to legitimize his extremist, dangerous garbage. Stephens, of course, couldn’t miss a delicious opportunity to express some of his hollow, false outrage against a liberal editor and publication. Nice try, but insincerity oozes out of this piece.
18
Nonsense. There's no point in offering Bannon a platform, we know his shtick. He's a washed-up wannabe pseudo-intellectual guru whose day is past, trying to eke out a living on the European neo-Nazi circuit. Even his former paymasters are embarrassed by him. The only time I want to hear him speak is in front of a jury.
16
Can a politically middle-or-the-roader object to giving a platform to an outright racist, or is it just liberal censorship?
14
You didn’t mind when the twitter mob elected a president, so why now?
18
The New Yorker just wasted 20 minutes of precious time with an interview of Franklin Graham on its latest podcast. I could barely get through the nonsense without being sick. I am no wiser for having listened to it (and I will never get back those 20 minutes). David Remnick is right to revoke any whiff of validation of a racist imbecile. He never should have invited Bannon in the first place.
16
I’d agree with Brett Stephens if this was about a piece for the New Yorker, but it wasn’t. Bannon had been invited to participate in what is, let us be honest here, an entertainment/promotional event. Many publications, including, I believe, The Times, stage these silly things. They have nothing to do with journalism or the core mission of the publication. Rather, they are staged for their publicity value, and to let readers pay not insubstantial sums to con themselves into thinking that they are part of the “family.”
Remnick’s mistake was not giving into the Twitter storm; it was inviting Bannon in the first place and giving him the attention and respectability he so craves. Had this been an interview with Bannon scheduled for publication in the magazine, and had the interview been pulled due to Twitter twaddle, then Stephens would be absolute correct. But it wasn’t, and he isn’t.
14
Great column and amen. When you suppress ideas, you empower them. Why do so many fail to grasp this time-tested reality. I fear Steve Bannon’s destructive, stupid take on the world. That’s why I want light shined on it.
8
If Bannon's take on the world is known to be "destructive" and "stupid", perhaps it isn't being suppressed?
1
Inviting Bannon was a mistake in the first place. He is a friend figure with influence in neither party.
5
Of course Mr. Remnick still edits the New Yorker. He is free to invite anyone he likes, even Nazis, to headline the festival. Other invitees, being free human beings, are free to then turn down their spots. Members of his staff, being free human beings, are free to express their concerns. Members of the public, being free human beings, are free to decide not to buy tickets to a festival headlined by a Nazi. And Mr. Remnick is free to weigh the consequences and decide whether to continue with the Nazi or not. It's all free will here, Mr. Stephens, and the power of the free market. What do you have against free will and the market?
16
@Jason, dehumanizing and slandering someone with no proof of Nazism is not honest or acceptable! Not now. Not ever. China is beautiful and very tidy and everyone is in step and won't tolerate dissent, so...
@Yancey A.
"dehumanizing and slandering someone with no proof of Nazism is not honest or acceptable!"
Bannon's philosophy and policy prescriptions are white supremacist. Those who can't see that are either blithely ignorant or willfully complicit (and therefore a party to evil). I don't need him to actually identify himself as a Nazi; when his arguments receive full approval from avowed Nazis, then there really isn't much difference, is there?
1
Whoa there!
Bannon, Khomenie, and George Wallace? All in one breath?
Isn't illicit equivalence part of the scorn heaped on liberals? With all due respect, I suspect you imbibed something that explains this illogical rant. For shame.
Plainly, no Mr. Stephens.
Banning Bannon is right.
No, it is not equivalent to interviews of Khomenie and the Wallace (doubtless evil men). Khomenie - whether I like it or not - represented the head of state. Wallace, as despicable as he was, was elected to office.
Bannon - I am sure you know - is neither.
Good people mud wrestle, but are not objects of curiosity for New Yorker fans. When celebrities speak against including Bannon, because they are concerned with his banal evil white washed in the brilliant, wry decency of the New Yorker, I share their concerns. If you don't, I am sure you will find other ways of accessing Bannon's diabolical mind. Not here, not ever.
What Bannon is made of, and what is the cause of his evil, are questions I would just soon have remain mysterious. There are limits to what decent people want to know.
Fascination with Bannon is analogous to fascination with Charles Manson. Not analogous to people who have clear constituencies that accept them as holders of legitimate office.
Your rant would would be about as silly had you included names such as Charles Manson or Son of Sam.
I will repeat: for shame.
15
Bret Stephens is being disingenuous. There is nothing wrong with Remnick correcting a mistake in judgment. Margaret Sullivan of the Post has a good article explaining why offering Bannon yet another platform is a mistake:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/enough-already-with-anyth...
16
Remember when MLK interviewed George Wallace and solved racism?
10
This is not about whether people on marketing sites have become the "editors" of publications that market themselves to, well, people on marketing sites. Despite how this appears, corporations will always do as they please, constrained only by our country's regulators (when they don't outright defy them, as business generally does) and only throwing as many PR nuggets to petitioners as necessary to calm them for a while so their hired influenzas[sic] can pitch on YouTube and Instagram in relative peace.
This is about whether Nazism and its close ideological relatives are still deplorable and unacceptable in a wider society that would rather judge by character than skin color and by laws than hate. Bannon, he of the horrible skin and far more horrible bigotry, has (and has helped implement) beliefs entirely in line with that, and if he thinks that not being allowed to speak his vile "side" is unfair then he should remember how great Americans "debated" such like him in France and Germany in the 1940s.
(A: Deploy tank. B: Apply tread and/or munitions to opponent. C: "Good chat.")
The bigoted "gutless" snowflake should count his blessings. Decades ago, we would run Bannon out of town, state, and continent, or worse. These days, we'd be content to run his moral brother-from-another, who made him ephemeral Chief Strategist of Bigotry, out of Oval Office.
2
This is nonsense. Those on a podium at a festival are the image of the publication. There would be no problem with an unedited, live taped interview with Steve Bannon with the hard hitting questions. The editor could of asked anyone with a pulse if this was a good idea.
3
If Steve Bannon has told Remnick that he plans to renounce his support for the most despicable traitor in American history--that is, Benedict Donald Trump--then by all means reinstate his invitation to the New Yorker forum. But if Bannon still supports Trump, then he's just another dope that no one need waste their time paying attention to. Remnick made the mistake of inviting a scoundrel. He's allowed to correct his error.
3
Sorry Bret, I'm not on Twitter. I have been a reader of the New Yorker for 50 years, and subscriber for 38. And I object to giving Bannon (impresario/polemicist?) any forum for his twisted (and well financed) ideology which has given us a monster like Donald Trump as our president. Why not focus on who is behind Bannon, and why they think they are and will profit from his faux nationalist/racist "ideas" That deserves a column.
9
Short and quick: This and your other pieces are great. NYT has moved a bit too far left for moderate lefties (like me). Smart moderate right stuff is so great to read and there is so little of it these days. Please please please keep it up, find someone with a last name that rhymes with Rockefeller and they have my vote!
1
The moderator on the Bret Stephens account rarely looks with favor on my views...nevertheless, hope springs eternal.
In the present case, I agree with where Mr. Stephens has come out on the Bannon-New Yorker matter. The New Yorker shouldn't have caved. They look gutless because they are gutless
However, all is not lost. Mr. Remnick can still recover his slightly damaged honor by sponsoring three debates between Mr. Stephens and Mr. Bannon. Mr. Remnick can moderate one debate, Country Music Star Hank Williams Jr. can moderate the second and Jeff Sessions can do the third.
I'm sure Mr. Stephens would like to give Mr. Bannon a chance to defend himself against the rather cavalier observation that Stephens makes in his column that Bannon is a "bigot."
I mean fair is fair isn't it?
2
@Tom Callaghan, Thank you!
1
I'm a long term subscriber to the New Yorker (and the NYT) and emailed in my displeasure as soon as I heard about this ludicrous invitation. I would certainly read an interview with Bannon if published in the New Yorker. But this was not that - it was an invite to a racist creep that would only give him sound bites to further his crud.
Inviting him to such an event strengthens Bannon and his ilk, and so does disinviting him. But it was the right thing to do.
Sincerely,
Someone who doesn't go on twitter
7
Bannon doesn't deserve legitmization -- which is what appearance in the New Yorker would have been. Remnick made a terrible error by inviting him in the first place. He should now correct that error by apologizing to his readers that he considered using his platform as a means of disseminating Bannon's hateful "ideas" more widely. The New Yorker should not be misused as an outlet for anti-semitism, racism, white supremacy, and misogeny.
4
Well now Remnick will have more time to ask difficult questions and engage in combative conversation with Judd Apatow and Jim Carrey. That should be riveting!
5
You can't debate racists. Their arguments have no rational backing. Inviting them to share a stage legitimizes their abhorrent opinions in the public sphere. There's no compromise on racism (or sexism, honophobia). Deplatforming them is the only way to deal with them.
9
Y’all are talking about Steve Bannon like he has something legitimate to say. You want opposing, controversial viewpoints? There are plenty of people who could speak who aren’t also white nationalists.
The New Yorker did the right thing. Bannon’s microphone is loud enough already.
9
Well, the Bannon-crowd were not going to be persuaded of anything but the holiness of their prophet, and anyone who automatically reaches for a "liberal bias" argument to claim marginalization was also not going to change his mind just because the New Yorker was interviewing his idol.
On the pragmatic side, it's difficult to see what Mr. Remnick could do but capitulate, given that his guest list was rapidly emptying.
On the political side, giving Mr. Bannon yet another platform to air the outrageous views he articulates so cunningly would do nothing to defang this particular predator.
So, it was badly done, from start to end, yes. It was a real hash-up. But the conclusion ought not to be that Bannon should be tentatively embraced (robustly challenged etc.), but rather that we should expect the media to be more circumspect and generally wary in their treatment of him.
2
Remnick extended the invite, and he can withdraw — for any reason or no reason whatsoever. Why are people so upset about Bannon’s first amendment rights?
Bannon has no right to appear on any stage that the New Yorker has paid for. And what exactly would we learn that we don’t already know?
Much ado about nothing.
5
Paragraph 16 seems awfully familiar. The reactions (smug, self-congratulatiory, reductive), are perpetually in search of a cause.
And finding them everywhere--even in the protests by kids whose classmates have been slaughtered. They are not particular to this or any historical act. They flow over current events like ideological sewage.
The right wing confirmation bias they embody adapts itself to virtually anything. Can one really think Remnick might have acted in way to legitimize or delegitimize the predictable Republican responses?
You, yourself, are legitimizing them by linking them to Remnick's reasonable decision not to exploit our cultural resentments by staging an ill-considered mano-a-mano boxing match for the New Yorker Festival.
Yes, if it were an interview, or a discussion--a genuine attempt to contrast interpretations of an accepted set of facts to determine which is better--then you might have been right. But Bannon v Remnick was merely a spectacle of the sort people not hooked on the red meat have grown to detest.
2
Brilliant casuistry. Actually not brilliant, but casuistry nonetheless.
Rescinding an invitation to an interview is really not like refusing to perform constitutionally-mandate oversight over what is increasingly amounting to a kleptocracy overseen by a group of money launderers. (I'm looking at you too, Wilbur Ross.)
Republican whataboutism should be checked at the Times's door.
9
The New Yorker should not be giving a platform to anti-vaccine celebrities like Jim Carrey. That guy has little to add to any serious conversation and has already done serious damage to public health. I'm sure all the children suffering from measles would agree.
5
Hear, hear, Mr. Stephens. It is about time that journalists have their feet held to the fire about their own prejudices. The New Yorker should have welcomed the interview with Bannon and made him feel uncomfortable, not by their opinions of the man but pointed questions that delve into his own shortcomings as a political operative, his belief systems and his predilection for hate speech. They blew an opportunity. Was it fear on their part that Bannon - a bit of a bully - would take over the interview and ask questions of Mr. Remnick?
3
Thank goodness the New Yorker recinded its invitation. Those of us who love and read it do not live in our little cocoon. We well know Bannon's absurdities and dangers. Giving him a platform is not free speech, it is endangering this nation...a situation that is more vital than letting a hack of a writer and thinker say his piece in the name of free speech. Speech is not free when it endangers society and is full of lies. The shame is our country can’t sue for libel.
10
When I heard about the disinvite on NPR this morning, I thought “There’s a lost opportunity”.
I suppose Judd Apatow and a late night host will make compelling guests for those who like to hear about how the entertainment business works, but I doubt it will be as interesting as seeing Remnick expose some of Bannon’s ideas as wrong—live and in his face—would have been.
Oh well, as long as no one is offended.
7
I disagree with both Remnick’s decision to extend the invitation to Bannon and his decision to rescind it. But it’s nothing like enabling Trump’s subversion of the Constitution.
Bannon is not a “victim of liberal censorship.” He was offered and then denied a microphone and a stage, without any implications for his freedom of speech.
Only a Trumpian conspiracy theorist would think that Remnick’s decisions in this matter reveal anything about “The Media” or truth’s “left-wing bias.”
Far from being locked in an “echo chamber,” New Yorker readers are, on average, far more knowledgeable about Bannon and his brand of politics than we’d like to be — and more informed about these ideas than the average person who endorses them.
Although the invitation did unleash a “social media mob,” not all mobs are created equal. There was more than enough legitimate criticism of the Bannon invitation to warrant rescinding it. And institutions that insulate themselves from criticism cannot survive — nor should they.
Finally, while Bannon is still significant enough of a figure to merit journalistic consideration, he is also now a washed-up has-been who’s unrepentant about his own bigotry and has shown plenty of cowardice in recanting his criticism of his former boss. There are many more important people to interview in 2018, even on the topic of right-wing populism.
But this isn’t really about Bannon. This is another conservative attempt to draw a false equivalency between left and right
10
Following this logic, why not interview David Duke, Roy Moore or Alex Jones? Freedom of speech may protect them, but responsible journalists will marginalize them, not give them festival soapboxes.
8
A better question is is this Bannon's farewell tour. His 15 minutes are up.
Next!
2
Poor Bret! Bannon can only find a welcome home on the likes of Fox, a few thousand right-wing radio affiliates, a ream of extremists websites and budding dictatorships like Hungary.
These laments for the digital mob might be more credible if Stephens & Co. ever lamented the commercial censorship which keeps not only left-wingers, but actual liberals, out of mainstream media, much less right-wing sources.
So Brett, can we look forward to your denunciation of the the age-old blackout on Noam Chomsky, Ralph Nader etc., by the corporate mob?
I didn't think so....
10
And, just what would the interview have achieved given that the pros and cons are already worn out? Bannon's supporters either would not have tuned in or would have gone on the twitter offensive. Some of the anti-Bannon people would have tuned in and gone on the attack versus Bannon. Some would have toasted the editor, but they would have been preaching to the choir. So why bother—unless this was just an ego trip for the editor?
3
Standing up to Trump shouldn’t even count as courage. It’s simply a matter of basic decency.
Same with standing up to Bannon, may his name be obliterated.
5
I would read an in-depth piece on Bannon in the New Yorker eagerly but have no interest in what he would say playing to a live audience. It was a bad idea, all in hopes of creating podcast content.
The New Yorker has been at the barricades since Remnick turned the ship around. He’s allowed a misstep.
7
The only phenomena that will help lesson suffering for the majority is discussion. Any media that does not stand for discussion is compromised.
Opinions can be had, of course, but first there needs to be discussion. We don't want extra publicity for bad or uninformed, but we need to engage in discussion.Period (unless you want to discuss my conclusion).
Remnick and The New Yorker are not the issue, nor is Twitter. One might as well blame the US Postal Service for the series of letters that would have appeared 50 years ago announcing the withdrawal of the participants from the festival by that medium . Remnick's choice was to either retain the interview with Bannon and allow the festival to collapse into meaninglessness, or to disinvite Bannon and allow the rest of the festival to continue without him. For me, that's an easy decision.
10
A courageous piece Bret. Now if only your employer would employ the same tough standards not only against Trump and his supporters but also the myriad bad actors on the Democrat side of the aisle. Matthew 7:3-5.
5
Good luck coming up with an example of any political figure throughout our history whose flaws compared to Trump's are so outsized as to be likened to a beam compared to a mote.
@Alfred Stanley, oh they're there, every day. Open the eyes or admit you don't want to.
@Alfred Stanley When Trump is caught having sex with a 21 year old in the Oval Office, let us know.
Good piece.
This was just a business decision to stave off a rebellion among the readership who don't like hearing views they disagree with.
Is that cowardly? I agree it certainly exposes the New Yorker as prioritizing the safe space of the liberal echo chamber over intellectual engagement. It's sad for the magazine's reputation, but it's increasingly common in this day and age. The Times and CNN are struggling with the same push and pull--centrism doesn't sell as well as Rachel Maddow or Tucker Carlson.
So the best that can be said about Remnick's decision is that he responded faithfully to the folks that pay the bills.
But as Stephens points out, it shows that we've given virtue signaling tweeters and comedians like Jim Carey and Judd Apatow a heckler's veto on what speech we're allowed to listen to.
Whether I'm reading a magazine, watching a debate or going to a comedy club, I don't need the government or the mob censoring speech for my delicate ears.
I bet a Remnick-Bannon debate would be really interesting.
I'm an adult, a "New Yorker", and I can make up my own darn mind.
15
@Mmm, another great comment.
Progressive bullies?? Oh brother. Give me the echo chamber that interviews the Bob Woodwards, the Dan Coats on election hacking, the fantastic Senator from Rhode Island who gave us a history lesson on the Roberts 5 Supreme Court decisions at today’s Senate confirmation hearings. And maybe an expert on Senate rules and why the vote to delay the hearing was ignored. Rule of law? There are indeed bullies out there, but they aren’t progressive. Maybe we are just fed up with pablum, decorum, and unilateral decisions to give bullies, enablers, a platform that gets publicity. Maybe we want real news.
10
Spot on Bret. We liberals all too often display a pitiful level of hypocrisy and cowardice. In doing so, any claim we have on the moral/social/political high ground disappears like a mirage in the desert of self-importance.
And why be swayed by Judd Apatow, whose movies are juvenile at best, or Jim Carey... a fine comedic actor whose political opinions are of little import?
9
The notion that Remnick ceded his editorial authority to the Twitter "mob" is sheer nonsense. What editor doesn't seek to know and respond to the interests and values of his, or her audience? It's practically the job description of an editor.
And the use of the term "mob" to describe widely-shared internet opinions is lazy and cheap. It allows you--as Stephens allows himself here--to ignore the arguments individuals within that "mob" are making. Instead of finding and responding to the best of those arguments, Stephens gives himself permission to respond to the worst, by cuffing around the irrational "mob." Easy, gratifying, and totally useless.
6
Well, it's a good thing that David Remnick is her boss, not you, Mr. Stephens. Nor do I think that A.G. Sulzberger would agree with your definition of "a firing offense.'' (Have you asked him?) There was a lively internal debate at The New Yorker about the ill-advised decision to invite Mr. Bannon to the carny-like atmosphere that would no doubt have prevailed, and Ms. Schulz was hardly the only voice heard from. Another example of the perils of over-eager "branding,'' platform extension, etc. Despite your public spanking, The New Yorker stands, and the respect it justly holds is only enhanced, not diminished, by Remnick's civilized decision to reconsider a bad call.
8
A decision is only worth discussing when it compares two or more bad choices in this case. I would go with the one that causes the least pain. Looks like Remnick has some aches we do not know about. I feel he did not quite serve the readership of his magazine.
And the fallout is going to be more painful than the immediate gang of online offended. But he gets to make such decisions. Tough calls.
2
"One of his writers, Kathryn Schulz, took to Twitter to say she was “beyond appalled” and invited readers to write Remnick in order to add their voices to the pressure."
If Ms. Schulz is on The New Yorker payroll, then she should not be. If she is an employee, then she should not take up issues with her employer in a public venue. I would fire her. But then I don't use Twitter.
6
Excellent piece, as usual. I’m glad The NY Times doesn’t silence you and your more “conservative” views! As a left leaning person living in the reddest county in Colorado, I chuckled when I read this story.Presumably, the New Yorker pays Remmick a fair amount of money to consider the pros and cons of speaker invitations, among his other duties. Like Bannon or not, agree or disagree, Bannon is one of the most influential advisers in the world today. And millions of Americans(maybe even a few people living in NYC) have embraced his nativistic views. It is fair to say that his impact on the world has been far greater than the actors and comedians who protested and declined invitations to participate. So, Remmick sets his own trap by inviting him, and walks into his trap by disinviting him due to the Twitter mob. He hands Mr Bannon and company a victory and battle cry against the FAILING MEDIA. Makes no sense to me at all to set yourself up to fail. Bannon notches a victory and never has to set foot in the room. Remmick is a coward, and should be justly rewarded. Enjoy the jokes from Jim Carrey!
5
I miss Al Franklin. Yes he acted in a boorish manner (as evidenced by the photo) but the jury never even got seated to judge the other charge due to the social frenzy.
And as much as I hate to agree with Bret Stephens on principle he is correct. Perhaps the invite never should have been issued in the first place.
But I would interview Bannon, and the President, given the chance. The danger isn't normalization of extreme bigots, its censorship of opposing ideas. This is exactly the issue many conservatives have of institutes of higher learning: "They're exposing our children to radical ideas! Horrors!"
In the end radicals will be marginalized because of their ideas, not because a thousand loud voices dominate the conversation. If they are not marginalized then we have bigger problems and those who stand for reason and a civil society will need to stand up and be heard as well.
6
@Chris W.: Al FRANKEN not Franklin.
So Bannon won't be asked tough questions. We won't see how he avoids answering them or what lies he tells or if he has the guts to tell the truth. What a loss for all of us!
4
Has Stephens been courageous enough to admit any of the misstatements of climate science he's made over the years or apologize for saying that climate scientists are spectacularly unattractive people?
Bannon isn't actually a highly influential person these days. He might have interesting things to say, but that's an interview which doesn't seem highly urgent, in my opinion. If I were famous, or in demand for giving talks, I'd probably appear onstage alongside him. But I don't really care that others won't, or that the New Yorker would cancel his invitation because they won't. Obviously he's an odious person, and you'd have to weigh that against the value of interviewing him. That's something reasonable people can disagree about, I suppose. Not seeing how the New Yorker handled this badly, other than changing its mind.
9
@Pierce Randall The Earth has naturally been much warmer in the past than it is today. That was caused by natural reasons. Climate science is far from absolute. I don't know why the Earth is warming. Neither do you.
2
We do in fact know why the earth is warming. We know why with as much certainty as we know that cigarette smoke hurts your lungs and thalidomide causes birth defects.
Pretending there’s any serious doubt at this point is as senseless as insisting that the earth is flat. There are some people doing that still, but we’re not consulting them when planning the next Mars probe mission.
2
@Robert Killheffer, why Robert? Why do some scientists think it's cooling if everyone knows it is warming?
I was an early adopter of social media, Twitter in particular, and while initially it offered an interesting platform to connect with people & have some interesting debates, like everything, it’s shifted to an extreme.
Does it truly not concern anyone else that the people most effected by the Twitter mob are not really the people we need to hold accountable?
In this debate, it seems less about Bannon or whomever else & more about a desire for control. Hate Trump? Most of us do. Since ‘the people,’ can’t take him down (yet) they’re focused on grasping at some form of control by attacking a publication that so much dared to be controversial in this invite.
If one uses the wrong term, they’re harassed to high heaven. Disagreements & debates from over a year ago are dug up & responded to as if it were posted 2 hours ago. Is this from fear? Fear of challenge? Why give Twitter users this kind of control? Whether they’re on a bandwagon for ‘sensitivity’ readers or championing against creative control because a concept isn’t to their liking, this is only a small fraction of people in the grand scheme of the world.
I have been a subscriber to The New Yorker since 1958. Yes, I deeply resonate with its liberal, iconoclastic point of view. I believe that interviewing Bannon exactly fits with the New Yorker reputation for offering well-researched, thoughtful, fair and valuable information. The New Yorker helps me to form my informed opinions. I am dismayed that Remnick succumbed to "opinion". I deeply respect him and his judgment. I'd say adios to Judd Apatow and Jim Carrey and hola to Bannon. Banon offers a point of view I abhor but not only do I want to hear it but also I am tired of movie stars believing they have something new and useful to say. I abhor political correctness and a lifetime of reading the New Yorker has helped me to form this opinion.
34
@CH You realize this is a film festival, right? So actors kind of go with the territory. Which is another excellent reason why inviting Bannon was a huge mistake. If Bannon had been left on the calendar, there would have been no event at all. No one would have showed. No one would have any objections to a profile or interview with Bannon in the magazine. The NYer film festival is a different event, and a wholly improper venue.
2
Bannon has all the credibility of Danesh DeSouza. Let 'em speak. He's as nutty as Trump, just with a better vocabulary. It's good to know those trying to destroy you.
6
@johnnyd, D'souza has plenty of credibility. Why do you say he doesn't? I will hope this reply makes it through.
1
@johnnyd, D'Souza is plenty credible, but go on
As a decades-long New Yorker subscriber I have to say I agree with everything Bret has to say here. This fiasco has damaged both the New Yorker and progressive causes. Having made the decision to invite Bannon, you have to stick with it - trying to undo the decision only makes things worse. In addition to the lack of spine, I would also question what happened from a management perspective. No competent management team would role out something like the Bannon invitation without having socialized it with all the stakeholders. The time to argue about the invitation is before it gets issued, not after! Very disappointed in the New Yorker, scoring an own goal against team Trump.
15
No matter how you see it, David Remnick made a decision using poor judgement. Bannon is not qualified to be part of the New Yorker festival, based on his lack of real accomplishments in comparison to the other participants, and that he is a blatant opportunist to anyone who will give him a public platform. The Twitter calling out is justified in this case.
9
Is there anything more banal that the internet "erupting" over one thing or another?
Increasingly, I see these mob eruptions given more and more credence and authority in the media as newspapers, particularly the Washington Post, build entire stories around trite, hackneyed and vapid tweets from people who no one knows, or should know.
The twitter mob should be given zero attention in the media except as the subject for a piece on the dumbification of America.
10
@Fenchurch I’m just going to give a massive, ‘AMEN!’ to this reply. It’s so refreshing.
2
Perhaps this would be a good time for Bret to offer to debate with Bannon. Bannon and Bret spring from the same conservative legacy, even if Bret feels the need to hold his nose as he defends Bannon against those mean and spineless liberals. The New Yorker should not be the only group shining a light on Brannon’s particular flavor of right wing ideology. Bret and his fellow travelers say they don’t like what Bannon stands for, maybe they can stop hiding behind the liberals and face him themselves.
45
On the contrary, Remnick shows himself to be open to admitting a mistake. Perhaps he didn't think through that B. would take bits and pieces of his interview and put it all over social media. Perhaps he didn't realize the potential for him to be outplayed by a sociopath. Perhaps he realized it wasn't worth the risk.
It takes courage to do what Remnick did.
14
What is wrong with you?
New Yorker staff expressed concern.
Talent in the Ideas Festival expressed concern and withdrew.
Both critical stakeholders.
But sure.
Blame Twitter.
15
It takes a great deal of courage to admit you have made a mistake. Mr. Remnick did so and I congratulate him. I will keep my New Yorker subscription (which I have maintained for 58 years).
14
Wow way to miss the mark, again. Bannon won when Remnick made him the offer. It lends his vile, racist, ethno-nativist views an instant air of credibility he otherwise lost. Bravery or Cowardice has nothing to do with it, basic humanity does. There was no debate or conversation that was going to take place with him and it would have confered upon him bona fides he would have used a cudgel to gain more exposure on the news networks. If you think it was cowardly and he caved to the liberal mob, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and have an open discussion with him yourself? I'm sure he has a lot of rational things to say about white power which you could then try to explain to us readers why it's good journalism. Looking forward to that column.
7
I must agree here. Withdrawing the invitation makes him a winner. It is shameful and unnecessary result.
3
I agree that the New Yorker's retraction of their invite to Bannon is idiotic. I never agree with Bret Stephens. But the invite in the first place was idiotic.
We need to accept that people like Bannon are contemporary equivalents of fascist ideologues in the 20s and 30s. I'm not saying Bannon is fascist, but he is in an analogous position via legitimate political discourse. People like Bannon deserve no place within what is generally considered to be legitimate discourse, not simply because all they espouse is hate, but because they reject the very basic terms of that discourse and are not subject to its basic principles. Just as with many Trump believers, upon whom reason and argument have no effect, so too is Bannon beyond discussion, debate, or conversation. He functions in the realm of violence.
We know this. There isn't much need for more public debate with him and that debate will only lend him what passes for "credibility" these days. Now he gets both the credibility and the platform to claim martyrdom and the New Yorker appears like one more stupid, whiny, politically correct lefty rag. Good job, Mr Remnick.
5
In fairy tales, such as The Three Billy Goats Gruff, trolls were objects of ridicule, easily fooled and, despite their violent threats, easily defeated. In Middle Earth, trolls were fearsome allies of the forces of darkness, but could not stand against the forces of light. Now, sadly, it seems that trolls are dictating discourse and are controlling what we should be able to critically debate in open dialogue.
If we are to respect Freedom of Speech, we have to be willing to hear and read things that we don't like or may make us uncomfortable. Shame on The New Yorker for not going through with the Bannon interview. Shame on Jim Carrey and Judd Apatow for acting like our petulant president.
9
While there might be some good arguments for the New Yorker to interview Brannon, this is not an issue of free speech really. Freedom of speech means the government cannot penalize you for expressing yourself and cannot exercise prior restraint. It does not mean that anyone who controls a platform is obligated to allow anyone to use that platform.
The New Yorker has not invited me to their festival so I can rant about all the things I’m currently unhappy about.
This does not mean they have violated my freedom of speech.
7
The only problem I have with the concept of this interview is that they would PAY him to be a blowhard IN PUBLIC. It is one thing to read it, and another thing to have people watching. I doubt even David Remnick could do much to embarrass or shame him.
7
This is a question of what constitutes legitimate speech or a legitimate viewpoint. We wouldn't expect the head of the Klan to be at a New Yorker festival obviously, and I think the backlash to Bannon reflects a sense among some progressives that his views are also beyond the pale. I certainly sympathize with that, though it does seem that progressives are trying to define legitimacy by fiat. Bannon is sadly still part of the mainstream and should be engaged with (and disagreed with strenuously).
5
Forget about Bannon for a minute.
At what point do we stop stop ceding our decision-making to “the blogosphere”, “the Twitterverse”, “Social media” or other unnamed blobs of electrons?
Bret is right about the lack of bravery here. The same knights of the (wireless) keyboard who criticize politicians for not standing up to Trump, wealthy Republican contributors, PACs, bigots, bullies and others are too afraid to challenge Steve Bannon in an interview? Are they afraid his ideas may be better than theirs? Are they afraid of witty Twitter posts criticizing them?
My politics could be described as left of center. And of course a lot of what Bannon has to say is garbage. But if Bannon can be banned, why not Cynthia Nixon? About 30-35% of the country would find her liberal, “socialistic” views appalling.
And, by the way, we can hate Bannon, but in 2014 he authored a memo which predicted, with eery accuracy, exactly how to elect a guy like Trump. And that plan was followed, successfully. So obviously he is not a dummy and, whether we like it or not, he put his finger on the pulse of something long before the rest of us. He figured out how to reach 30-35% of the country, if not more. We may hate him for a lot of reasons, but he is not a fringe wing nut.
This is not right nor courageous. It is not about Bannon. It is about being a journalist. If you only report on people and opinions who agree with you, you are no better than Fox News.
742
@Jack Sonville you make some valid points - Bannon is a right wingnut who shouldn't be given time/effort to engage in conversation. We already know his views, and if Remnick thought he could have a "civil" conversation, press him on his "views", many of us feel otherwise. I have great respect for Remnick, but this was a BAD JUDGMENT CALL! Let Bannon use Breitbart or Fox for his dismal rhetoric. I don't need to hear it! I don't WANT to hear it!
@Jack Sonville
We've all heard plenty from Steve Bannon already. I'm sure there are plenty more worthwhile interviewees to be found among the 7.5 billion alternative choices.
1
@Jack Sonville
I think this is baloney.
We know exactly what the mysterious "something" is that he put his finger on, and it's incredibly dangerous; it's tearing the country apart, a virulent and unashamed white supremacy.
This is the classic free speech exception, where it's not okay to yell FIRE in a crowded theater if there isn't one. Bamnon deserves no platform, no distinguished interviews, no "challenging interviews." He deserves utter oblivion.
I'm so old, I can remember when you subscribed to a magazine, they sent you a printed copy every week or every month. That was what they did best. You didn't ask for more. Now, the subscription comes with a website, where everyone can read at least a few stories every month of what you pay for. And the magazine conducts a Festival, where prominent racists are feted. If they want to open their challenging interviews to spectators, why not call it an Inquisition?
1
I strongly agree with the analogy Stephens makes between the Ayatollah Khomeini and Bannon. I just wish that Mr. Stephens had thought longer about this analogy. If the Ayatollah had made himself available for an interview in 1979 and if 40% of Americans had a positive view of him and found "some truth" in the denial of the holocaust that Ahmadinejad later trumpeted but the Ayatollah surely shared, I really doubt if Stephens would have welcomed giving him a forum. Bannon's time in Europe with the far Right make it clear beyond any doubt that he is an actual ideological fascist. While it may be the case that his racialism is not directed against Jews, it is clear that he views non European people as a threat to what he sees as the racial quality of white America. It is long past the time when we must view antagonism against Hispanic Americans as no better than Anti-Semitism or hatred of African Americans. If Bannon had been guilty of the former Stephens would not have called members of the Anti-Defamation League a "mob", he would have called them what they would be, guardians of American equality. Days after the funeral of John McCain is not the time to give a platform to one who calls himself a Leninist of the Right, with all the violence that entails.
5
So Remnick listened to his readership, his staff, as well as the vehement objections of other invitees. He owned up to his mistake. How's that a lack of courage? And how on earth is that comparable to Republican Senators who send their thoughts and prayers to the American people because they enable a crypto-fascist Republican POTUS?
Like the top seeds at the US Tennis Open, Stephens must be buckling from the heat. He keeps hitting his winning shot into the net.
Instead of calling the teapot black, maybe Stephens ought to interview Bannon for his column. That would be a show of the "courage" he claims Remnick lacks. Why not just let Bannon write a guest column for Stephens if he thinks it takes courage to enable a shallow agent provocateur to flap his lips before a hostile audience.
Stephens' has so far proven unworthy of William Safire's legacy as an intelligent and acerbic Tory voice at The Times.
Safire would never waste a column on the likes of a political race-baiter, an accused wife-batterer, a fraud, and a professional bomb-thrower.
The issue with Bannon is Bannon, not the visceral hostility he provokes and his shunning by decent people. There's no martyr in Bannon. The only victim here is Stephen's credibility.
86
@Yuri Asian
Fantastic reply.