love love love reader comments.
i am often surprised that a thought-provoking article is not open to comment.
i could be wrong but it seems right that opinion pieces would be open to comment more than factual reporting of news stories, but that rule does not seem sacrosanct.
occasionally, i imagine “overhearing” the nyt staff discussing whether to subject a piece to reader comment...so very many holes in this one, too many sacred cows in this one, this one positively reeks of hot buttons...
i would be interested to know the actual criteria.
20
My favorite column from 2019?
No comment.
5
Oh, so sweet.
Where's the section here for NYT picks? Kidding!
My experience was that of being "ghosted" during the impeachment inquiries. I commented (admittedly, "heatedly", but civilly) every day, but was never printed. I presumed that so many other commenters made the same points, so redundancy may well have been an issue.
But then, as soon as the Articles of Impeachment were adopted, I was back! A miracle? I'd like to know, but I'm certainly not holding my breath! Happy New Year to all!
6
Thing is, they post a reply, then immediate after close the comment section.
Want a conversation, leave it open a while, otherwise you get this:
'Paul Krugman: I obviously disagree, Jason, but that's what makes this a good comment. I have a feeling a lot of people share your misconceptions.', then closed.
So now Jason is not only dumb but unable to retort. Not a very good conversation ensues out of that, sorry.
14
I would like to know the policy which determines which articles allow comments?
22
It's unfortunate that Kara Swisher has responded in such a snide manner to Mr Chaney's comments.
Her comments come across as insulting to farmers and those of us not living in urban areas.
18
Please do an article on the censors. Fascinating!
8
I admire both Trump and Barr. This puts me in a minority of those who read the Times. Some of my comments have appeared in this section which I appreciate. I think some of the comments are too long. I try to read some time permitting. Happy New Year to all!
6
Thanks goodness for the NYTimes....The Oregonian just ended readers comments effective January 1, 2020. So, we've lost our ability to comment, offer additional information, share our opinions etc., on the local level. But, we'll soldier on. Anyway, there is nothing as life affirming as getting an editors pick from the NYtimes...better than just abut anything... .
5
This is scary. Knowing that the columnists read some of the comments will strap a straitjacket on my brain: No more leavening the serious with the puerile!
3
I have noticed that the comments in the N.Y. Times are, by far, more interesting and more articulate than comment sections in comparable enewspapers. Perhaps the readership is more thoughtful. Or the section editors separate the wheat from the chaff. I feel a sense of satisfaction when one of my comments is published and one of accomplishment when my “recommends” goes over 100. I’ve topped out at 998. Not that I’m counting. Still looking for a N.Y. Times pick though.
7
Where, oh where, is some self-reflection by The Ethicist?
Mr. Appiah practically got pummeled in the Comments section when he apparently made the case for bystander apathy -- twice! -- and got called on it by many a reader.
It would have been very interesting to read what he thought of the somewhat collectively indignant repudiation of his opinion.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/19/magazine/should-i-report-officiants-who-wont-marry-same-sex-couples.html#commentsContainer
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/17/magazine/should-i-intervene-when-i-see-a-parent-mistreating-a-child.html#commentsContainer
3
Whats the point of writers reading the comments that side with the writer or agree withe writer and fill up the comments section? Comments that disagree or present an alternative view should be picked fo approval. Otherwise it seems as though the NY Times is a mouth piece for a single view that supports the opinion columnists or members of the editorial board.
It is often frustrating when some opinion columnists get a pass and timely commenting of the columnists piece is not allowed to elicit a response. I have found that responses to certain biased opinions are not invited and there are no comments. The primary reason that I subscribe and spend time is an opportunity to provide a different view. Really whats the point in your writers reading my comments when I am trying to provide a fair, balanced and civil comment that is different than writer's comment.
9
Seems that Jennifer Finney Boylan completely misunderstood the comment
5
David Brooks told his readers he never reads comments.
7
To the OpEd columnists:
If you are really doing your job, the comments should be at least as interesting as what you wrote.
For me that is delightful.
2
Does NY Times and the writers, who might have access to it, share profile detail of any reader who commented on any article with other company or Govt agency?
1
If you do read our comments, then why do you close comments from the app, yet still allow them elsewhere? I’ll go to comment from iOS, only to find that article closed to comments - yet I’ll see comments there that are only a few minutes old. Then I’ll return an hour later to find comments added since I last checked - all while closed for comments. Is this some sort of censorship, especially given it shuts out those who may be known to agree less often with the majority of NYT’s readers in the Northeast?
7
The NYT curation of comments is often disingenuous and unfair. For example on Dec. 29 you published an article “Sweethearts forever. Then came Alzheimers, Murder and Suicide”. Most of the 1234 comments were laudatory. This article was also plugged on Twitter where comments continue unabated and most of them find the article repugnant.
Can you explain the dissonance?
4
NB to commentors whose remarks may be read by the NY Times: Write well.
1
What bothers me most about commenting on the NYTimes articles is that my comments are often not published! You wonder who makes these decisions to include and exclude voices from the conversation. My comments always follow the guidelines, but it's infuriating the way comments are not included.
9
Comments are fine, and it's nice that the columnists read them, but what the NYT really needs is a position you deleted years back: an Ombusdman.
But your Ombudsman's critiques over the year hit a bit too close to home, and that position was deleted, a slap in the face to your loyal readers.
Too bad.
16
Yesterday I posted a comment to the article ‘Nothing less than a civil war’: These white voters on the far right see doom without Trump. It was approved but within an hour or so it was gone. I am assuming it was deleted and I wonder why. At the time of the deletion, 11 people had recommended it. This is significant and they obviously liked it. I thought it was a good comment; and there was a good possibility that more would have recommend it, if it had not been removed. I have my own thoughts as to why it was deleted and maybe some readers did not agree with my opinion. There was absolutely nothing derogatory or offensive about it; and believe me, I have seen plenty of mean spirited comments approved and left to remain.
I posted a comment to the editors displaying my anger and annoyance at this occurrence. It must be noted that I have had a number of comments made Times picks and that does please me. You made one of mine today and I want to thank you. I enjoy writing comments to articles that I find relevant and appropriate to me. I will continue reading the New York Times and commenting. I have been a Times reader for many years and plan to continue.
I do not know if you will post this but I thought it was important to give you my feedback.
8
We may be considered a Christian nation, but we sure seem to worship an angry god.
4
Ah but sometimes the Times does not publish comments that are polite but go against the preferred ideas of the paper. And does not touch some topics like the doctoring of the OPCW report on chemical weapons in Syria. (Read Scott Ritter on this). So clearly room for improvement. The Times, like any other media organization, is not a neutral objective paper and sometimes it is blinded by its own ideology (WMDs in Iraq is a case in point but also its support for right wing coups in Latin America).
9
If the writers and editors would not just read but pay attention to the comments it would make this a better newspaper. I have not seen that to be the case, sadly.
6
Do your regular columnists have the freedom to censor reader arguments in response to their columns with which they strongly disagree, deciding whether the comments countering their Op-Ed’s can be published? One asks that of reports that Columnists not quoted here (Charles, Blow, Thomas L. Friedman, and some others ) have the right to decide which comments in response to their columns will be published? Thank you for any clarification.
7
There are great opportunities for fertile conversations and critical and constructive thinking, until you get to Krugman...
No need to tell writer he is “ obviously” wrong and people are entitled to their “misconceptions”...
Very one sided thinking bias...which does not allow for fertile anything.
Black swan theory...
Can not discuss the existence of a god, if you can not accept there may be no god...
1
All of my comments were brilliant, imho. Why didn’t you notice?
8
Why doesn't David Leonhardt have comment threads for more than a handful of his columns?
When comment threads on opinion pieces are the norm, especially for regular columnists, Leonhardt's comment-free columns look like a sign of arrogance. As though he considers his columns the ne plus ultra that cannot be improved upon my any mere reader.
Is that what Leonhardt thinks, or does he simply not want to read comments?
4
Being 71, most of my exposure to media/news/information, whether print or electronic was one way. They present, I receive. No madder how much I respected and felt like Walter Cronkite and David Brinkley were talking to ME, and they were VERY good at that), they didn't know me from Adam or what I thought about their reporting or about events. I never snail-mailed them and doubt I would have gotten a reply. Furthermore, having worked on the business side of tv and witnessed many newscasts broadcast live, it is a bit disorienting to see these friendly and authoritative faces speaking into a long camera lens mounted on a quite sizeable television camera, as inanimate as it gets, especially when it is on of the newer, robotic cameras with no camera operator behind it. Newscasters and tv hosts are very good at pretending to talk you or me, when the reality is they are talking both to milllions at the same time as having only an inanimate camera lens staring at them. I suppose newspaper and magazine columnists are the same, using their keyboards and monitors. Bottom line: in the past, no audience or reader feedback. I LOVE being able to make it 2 way and appreciate the columnists' responses here very much. Seriously. Thanks folks!
Suggeston to NYT on mechanics: due to phone spell checking that goes awry and inability to always proof before submitting, I later find typos/misspellings. Perhaps a limited time of 5 min to re-open and edit to avoid looking ignorant?
5
Re Gail Collins' comment "I don’t think readers could have even come up with the names of cabinet members during previous administrations. But they’re obsessed with this crowd."
You've got to be kidding. There have been so many comings & goings of cabinet members in this administration that it's almost impossible to keep up with who is in & who is out.
12
Might investigations of horrific anti Semitic attacks and even attitudes reveal that support for Israel’s treatment of millions of occupied Palestinians, criticism of which is viewed my some as anti semitism thereby restricting open discussion towards meaningful and just solutions, is a significant obstacle towards understanding the overall problem and lessening tensions ?
4
Criticism:
NYT op-ed columnists, like nearly all media, consistently fail to get fundamental.
e.g.
Brooks, Friedman, Krugman, Douthat, write about morality & economics.
Yet they never mention moral and monetary code (or other codes) in a physics, evolution and complexity context.
The pattern recognition from the 4.54 billion year sample space of evolution is far more fundamental, hence far more reliable than human history since, say, Adam Smith or Milton Friedman.
Why?
Because:
"Initial conditions rule in complex systems." Stewart Brand
&
"We need scarcely add that the contemplation in natural science of a wider domain than the actual leads to a far better understanding of the actual.” Sir Arthur Eddington
I challenge any op-ed columnist to a civil written discussion / debate re economics, and/or the big picture situation our species finds itself in.
You have my email address. Contact me.
Biological speciation happens faster with an isolating mechanism: islands, mountains, being on the fringe of a population, etc.
I highly suspect the same is true for memetic speciation, e.g., thinking outside the mass grave.
BA Econ.
Some of the people I've interviewed:
E.O. Wilson, Michio Kaku, Robert Trivers, Penny Patterson, Fritjof Capra, Frank Vertosick, Paul Ehrlich, Bruce Lahn, Robert Kurzban, Bill Irons, Paul Watson, Ernest Callenbach, Hugo Van Lawick, Bill Mollison, Godfrey Reggio, Edward Abbey, Leonard Peltier, Frank Zappa, Dan Haggerty, Mike Gray, Martin Sheen, Wulf Zendik &.
4
I'm glad to know that many of your columnist read and consider reader comments. There is, however, a glaring omission, David Brooks. He's made the point in his columns that he doesn't read the comments. Perhaps he's too busy contemplating larger issues. Or, perhaps he's too sensitive and world-weary.If he's not too too busy, he should certainly reconsider. It would do him considerable good.
8
As many have written, the comments section is a wonderful part of the Times. The fact that the Times' writers read comments is icing on the cake.
But there is a dark side to the comments section that is rarely discussed - the fact that some commenters have developed an addiction to a particular form of FOMO - firing off my opinion. These commenters develop an uncontrollable urge to comment about anything and everything (this comment itself is an example).
But help is available. You can rediscover the joy of keeping your opinions to yourself when you have nothing really important to say by calling 1-800-NO-WRITE. *
* Comments on the above are not welcome.
7
Roger Cohen's article on Modi in Texas was remarkable for its last line, "I’d bet on Modi to transform India, all of it, including the newly integrated Kashmir region."
Truly prophetic, if you look at India today, not so many days after the article and yet when the article came out, it was very difficult to gauge the significance of that sentence.
What insight. This is what one turns to the NYT for. To get ahead of one's own understanding.
1
It's quite interesting that the writers take a very big interest in the writings of commenters. I for one have always felt so personally interested in the articles that attracted my eye. I have mostly wanted to write comments to add to the range of facts and understanding of the writers. I write for writers. Maybe not so well, but I focus more on the narratives than the grammar and unfortunately am a bit lax in grammar and spelling. I'm notoriously bad at refraining from run on sentences, but you know, my brain runs on and I just want to get it down as I thought it feeling dedicated to the idea more than the art. So I hope your reporters learn new angles on a complex geometry of the news. And just kidding to make you laugh; I consider myself a recreational contributing writer to the New York Times. I actually pay for the privilege, and boy, is it worth it. What a bargain. It's a highly valued continuing education at a bargain rate.
Kara- " much as you switched from land lines to cellphones. Remember land lines?"
I'll bet the Old Grey Lady has many of these, including one on your desk!
2
I wonder sometimes if all commenters read the column.
8
I can agree with Krugman's general assessment except that he essentially ignored Jason's real concern. A disappointing reply.
2
@KCPhillips Yes, and Kara Swisher's "Keep all your gasoline-guzzling and climate-killing motor vehicles manned by humans." was not only disappointing, but snarky too.
I appreciate that Times' editors select comments that disagree with authors on Editorial/Op-Ed pages. For example, when the Times' Picks includes comments that disagree with Krugman (among the many comments that agree with him), it shows that not only so called "liberals" read the Times. (It also helps dispel the myth of so-called "liberal bias" that entertainers in talk, rather than capable reporters, reiterate almost daily.)
The editors choosing what's in Times' Picks seem to select the best-reasoned comments/arguments, regardless of the comment's perspective. The result is that we readers get some pretty good ideas about the merits of what gets identified as "conservative" or "liberal"/right or left in any piece.
3
@Chris
I don't like that the page defaults to the Times picks. That means that they are manipulating what we see first.
It should default to all, or reader picks.
2
“Opinion-writing used to be a one-way lecture, with columnists tossing off thoughts to an audience that was largely mute. Now we’ve moved from lectures to conversations.”
As it should be. The worst opinion writing abuses the power of not being challenged and becomes authoritarian. Columnists critiqued others, but remained beyond critique. Now they taste their own medicine.
1
Ah, but do they only read the comments that the Times chooses to post?
1
Challenging reporters and OpEd writers and the institutions that employ them is finally coming in vogue. It's been a long time coming and the future of "journalism" is at stake.
2
Kara Swisher: Your response to the comment about trucks in rural America made the commenter’s point all over again. Although our numbers are far below those of our urban cousins, many of us do not in fact have cell phone coverage; our land lines, which you consign to the lower levels of museum antiquities, remain literally our lifelines to fire protection, emergency transportation, and so forth. And no, internet is not the answer. In bad weather or in a power outage, our computers, like our cell phones, are useless. Ironically, we are more dependent on our computers than cityfolk. They bring us the New York Times (which our local paper, an affiliate of Murdock’s empire, will not deliver), podcasts of the NPR shows we cannot get beyondthe intervening hills, and the opportunity to share this comment. Urban America denigrated and wrote off my anti-Clinton, anti-abortion, anti-immigrant rural and semi-rural neighbors in 2016; please stop before we lose what remains of our democracy and our decency in 2020.
6
@Priscilla Weaver I loved Kara Swisher's comment. She's tough, committed to her cause and she takes no prisoners. Don't back down Kara! There are many of us out here who love you. And to Ms. Weaver - oh stop with the liberal bashing. It's a cheap shot.
4
read me, read me! (newly added to bucket list, being on this list!)
2
This is so utterly narcissistic. Almost every writers response is about how they personally feel in response to these comments. It's not about how they feel, its about their work. Look at how many of the writers responded with 'I' sentences. I'll take a moment to point out Kara and David's responses. Both focus more on the substance of the material and much less on themselves in their responses. More of that please.
1
@Steve Their work is how they feel. It's a bit difficult to separate the two. And I don't see either of them as narcissistic. I'm thankful for the grace, intelligence and thoughtfulness of each of these columnists, even though there are some I like better than others. It's so easy to judge so harshly from the comfort of your living room, Steve,, when they (the columnists) have thousands, perhaps millions, of people reading their columns every day. Relax and Happy New Year.
4
@Joanna Stelling they write from the comfort of their living room.
Even in this case, the comments are almost as much fun to read as the article. I’m always a little bummed when I read a really good article and there are no comments, but I guess the moderation that makes the NYT comments so consistently interesting is pretty labor intensive.
I knew the writers read the comments because I once had a reply from one! (Josh Max) I couldn’t have been more thrilled with a Times Pick. And I see Nicholas Kristof reply from time to time, always thoughtfully. I hope the writers realize how much readers appreciate this.
Thanks for being there NYT writers and commenters and Happy New Years to all!
9
I would say 9 times out of 10 my comments don't get posted and I usually am not saying anything too radical. I often wonder what makes NYTimes reject a comment ...
4
@Sarah
It's an individual who rejects a comment. S/he could be in a bad mood or afraid of hurting the columnist's feelings. Sometimes if you submit the same comment the next day, it will be published.
And if your point is too obscure, it may be rejected. I've noticed how few comments about Opus Dei are published, in spite of the enormous influence the group has on the SCOTUS, etc.
That seems to be changing at last now that Barr has become so powerful. The NYT has hesitated to investigate and report on Opus Dei's importance, methods, etc.
3
Thank you for posting the replies to the replies. Some thoughts:
"They" is plural. Period. If we lose precision in language, we lose its usefulness as a communication tool. And it's all we have. (Cheers to Stephen in Ireland.)
Bill Barr is a national tragedy. The electoral college is another national tragedy. Not investing in infrastructure is yet another. So is shortsightedness. All of these lead a list of so many national tragedies, most coming to a head in the last three years with Trump as their "permission slip."
What's the matter with rich Democrats? I know he's in the shadows now, but remember what Bill Clinton said: "If you want to live like a Republican, vote for a Democrat." History has borne that out.
Cats and trucks aren't going away; how we power them will change.
The internet has become a two-edged sword. The back edge is killing society as we know/knew it.
Last thought: for every day Trump has been in office, it will take a week or more to undo that day's evildoing and skullduggery. Sorry, grandkids. Blame your Republican forebears.
5
"They" has been used in a singular sense before and can be used as a singular now. The idea that it can only be used in a plural manner was a much later imposition by Victorians on a long existing word that can just as easily be reversed.
3
I love reading the comments, especially the Reader's Picks.
But I wonder about the publication process. Sometimes my comments are published right away, and sometimes they're published much later. I've been told it's because of the high volume that some articles create, but that can't be the case when there's not much volume. As a result, I now also read comments that are at the bottom of the list, ones that have been posted more recently and have fewer "recommends."
9
Ms. Collins, yes, I confess I am technically obsessed with Trump’s cabinet and their assaults on civil rights, the environment, poor people and immigrants. But my obsession feels like watching a slow motion train wreck, simultaneously horrified and terrified. The train that is being destroyed is nothing less than our nation, the Constitution, the rule of law, our standing in the world, our moral influence— and that’s just for starters. Obsession isn’t quite the right word because it doesn’t take into account the horror and grief I feel that for the first time in my life I am witnessing the destruction of America, the great and noble experiment.
6
Had to comment on Nick Kristof comment on a comment. It's not the church, or The Church for the Catholics, that has been a moral leader. Rather it's been individuals like MLK, who have been those leaders. The Churches, esp. in the US, have all had to be dragged into morality, and of course modernity. As organizations The Churches have not been great moral leaders or teachers. But individuals have...
7
@Boregard Today, because of media coverage, your comment seems on target. And it is true about many churches. BUT in fact historically, churches as churches have been leaders in defending the defenseless, etc, etc. Certain branches of Christianity have been particularly active: United Church of Christ, the Methodists, Baptists, Episcopalians, Lutheran Church of America, and others. They have not always stood for "morality", but they haven't had to be dragged to it either. I started to write specifics, but it would have turned into a term paper at best. Google churches and society or any combination thereof to find a ton of information.
4
@EKB "the Lutheran Church of America"
You're way behind the times, EYB!
The present body is the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, formed in 1988 through a merger of the Lutheran Church in America (in, not of), the American Lutheran Church, and the Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churches.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheran_Church_in_America
Bret Stephens somehow always finds a way to fail. Even here. Yikes.
20
"I find it hard to believe that all my life I was surrounded by people who felt they were in the wrong body."
Speaking as a 65-year-old who has some degree of gender dysphoria and who has discovered that several of his friends are gender dysphoric, I think the difference today is one of increased acceptance, attention, and opportunity.
When I was young, very few transitioned, and they faced enormous challenges to do so. Non-gender-conforming behavior was often illegal and brought even greater social condemnation than it does today.
Typically, it was unspoken. I learned that some long-term friends were dysphoric only after I mentioned my own dysphoria, and would never have guessed otherwise, as they weren't publicly feminine in dress or manner.
I am concerned that some young children are being led down the wrong path by parents who assume that effeminacy equates to dysphoria. The decision to transition should be made in a child's teens, as their gender identity emerges in its adult form.
But I think the bottom line is that more people have gender dysphoria than we suspected when it wasn't discussed.
5
"I wanted to highlight D.N.’s comment because it captures an aspect of the argument against the Electoral College I had not considered"
Yeah sure, but a popular vote would have the same problem. The president would be beholden to the west coast and New York. The rest of the country would be nearly completely ignored, except maybe Texas and Florida.
4
@Dave
New York State is so blue that it was called for Hillary Clinton almost immediately after the polls closed. That extreme blueness is due entirely to New York City - cities like Buffalo or Syracuse would not be enough to cause it.
With the Electoral College, the deep red rural areas of Upstate New York have no voice at all in presidential elections.
But Mr. Trump says that the Electoral College is skewed toward Democrats. It's easy to tell why he'd like to think so, but can anyone explain how it IS?
2
NYT actually has moderators, unlike WAPO. I subscribe to both and am constantly frustrated by the inability to collapse irrelevant replies in WAPO comments.
6
@Joyce Ice
Collapsing is one thing; moderating (to weed out invective, etc.) is another thing. The NYT and the WaPo both moderate well.
My chief frustration with WaPo is that it lets you reply to specific comments, but shows the replies somewhere else so that others may not know what you are referring to.
My chief complaint with the NYT is its unreliability in closing threads. WaPo leaves comments open for two weeks. The NYT closes threads apparently whenever it likes, sometimes later the same morning. That means that unless you are replying to a WaPo article that appeared exactly two weeks ago, you know you have time to revise and edit your prose, check your facts, and even rethink the whole comment. You can do it all in a text editor if you don't want to post too hastily.
At the NYT you never know when the comment thread will close. It could cose as early as later the same morning. It could close while you're checking your facts to see that what you post is accurate. Many are the times that I've taken great care on a comment only to find that the thread is closed.
Unexpected cosing makes for sloppy commenting.
Write a letter to the editor? That's only for people with credentials.
2
@Joyce Ice
Yes, the Times has moderators, and for the past year or so they haven't performed too well. Maybe it's some software system or maybe it's the difference among the different individuals, but it's only once in a while that I can post a comment and have it appear in a timely fashion - within 10 minutes, or even an hour, say. Sometimes it takes 12 hours or more, other times it disappears into as black hole never to be seen again - and it's not as if I post offensive comments. This is even when I see a comment replying to another post appear within minutes of the original post. This is why I am now in the habit of time stamping my comments.
It's good to know that Times writers read the comments. Now, if only the moderators would spruce up their act. What's the problem, don't they trust us?
12:55 EST, 12/31
5
This was a wonderful piece. I often spend more time reading the comments than I do the original piece. And I agree that the Times has more civil, reasoned commenters than the Post. Times commenters are the cream of the crop. But for the sake of argument, let me take another side:
Some opinion pieces are so perfectly conceived and written, and are such jewels of writing, that they are inevitably marred by comments dashed off, comments overly personal, comments beside the point, and comments that dilute the power of the original work. So, my hope is that Fewer (but Better) commenters come forth to put in their five-minute two cents, and I'd urge the creative commenters to hold their creativity, identity, and personal piques and read the piece again before writing their three paras.
4
@Craig Avery
Who are you to say what is write or wrong from those that comment. Take them all in and enjoy as I do. Who are you to say what a comment should or should not contain and what format they should take? Personal comments are good. We get to see the humanity in each other and reach out even if anonymously. Many people sign their real names to their heartfelt comments. So what if the comments are not to YOUR liking. That is some of what is wrong with us at this juncture. So what if someone's comments are beside the point. They can bring about new thoughts and new ideas for new exploration. I enjoy the comments everyday and would not change a thing. Let people be.
17
@Craig Avery I totally agree with you. In that very context, the 'chosen' comments here in the article fall short of any standards of criticism or insight or freshness of view point. In a way the chosen comments tend to prove your point.
1
@Craig Avery, I can’t resist the temptation to ask: where do you place yourself on your commenter scale?
Are you a “creative commenter” or one who “dilute(s) the power of the original work”?
Dying to know.
2
So glad to see that the writers read the comments- Often, I've read a comment and think, "OMG, that is a perfect response, I hope the writer sees it!"
Now I know that, oftentimes, you do- Happy New Year everyone!
15
I really enjoyed reading this article and being assured that your writers read our comments. As the campaign season heats up, could your columnists provide us with much more content concerning the actual policies of the candidates? Too often, you publish articles with titles like “Is America ready for a gay president?” Trump’s burnished mahogany visage and outlandish tweets are in our faces 24/7, but weeks can go by without any serious reporting on specifics that voters need. I read on another site that Elizabeth Warren has a “blue new deal.” I was heartened by this, as the ocean is in serious trouble. Has the Times reported on it? We know that none of the Democratic candidates would favor keeping children in cages at the border, but we don’t know the details of how they would fix our broken immigration system. What is the difference between Bernie’s Medicare for All and Warren’s? Inquiring minds want to know;at least, I do.
Leave it the the rest of the mainstream media to report on elections as horse races, breathlessly covering poll numbers and endlessly speculating on who is electable.
With so many intelligent and articulate writers on your staff, you can do better.
13
@Marianna Raymond I also think attention to the details of trump administration policies which affect us would be very important to read and understand, such as effects on environment (not just global warming), health care, poor people, and so on.
3
@Marianna Raymond You speak for me at least and, I suspect, for many more of the readers here.
The quality of the articles should be at least two or three notches above those elsewhere.
They should be as distinctive as Shaw or even Kissinger prose.
1
It would be enlightening for all politicians to take the pulse of the current state of the union on the myriad issues and concerns of the American people by reading the NYT comment section. They would likely benefit from the real time opinions of a large cross section of the voting public. These insightful and diverse comments are true indicators of what's really on people's minds. And they are far more reliable than the often inaccurate polling results of a few hundred or thousand folks across the country who can still be reached on a landline.
6
@HMP I'm not sure you are serious.....NY Times readers are not close to being a representative sample of the American public. They certainly do not represent a "large cross section" of the voting public. Many conservatives think the Times is a distorted, left-wing propaganda outlet and wouldn't consider reading it or making comments.
1
I too greatly appreciate the Comments section in The New York Times. For one, they've helped me, literally, maintain glimmers of hope during this very difficult, painful, and sad time in our history. So thank you! That said, it's interesting to note the columnists who, for whatever reason (s), chose not to be cited in this article.
7
Yes, respectful, thoughtful disagreement is a necessity. A lot of the comments here are artfully articulated. It's part of the attraction of a great newspaper, the whole "two way street" of the enterprise. I did note the absence of Maureen Dowd, however.....interesting.
3
I am devoted to the Comments sections in the NYT - streets ahead of anything in the English-language press here in Europe. My heart sinks when I see that the comments on a given article are in the high hundreds (let alone thousands), knowing I'll never get through them, thus not knowing what I'm missing.
p.
6
@Jerry and Peter
Yes, exactly. So clever too. Since I now live in another state, i deeply miss NYC. These comments keep me in the NY thought box everyday. Because I cannot live without the diversity of NYC and the tap water to drink, I will be returning to my home state soon. I tried to give it a year here and I am deeply homesick. The quality of life here is astounding and completely different. The people and citizenry are marvelous. It is a very transient state however. The transplants here are bluing the state from red but not fast enough for me. I need to be back in NYC as its in my blood. There is no place like it and I need the crowds, the dirt, the potholes, the traffic, the buildings, the sidewalks and stores to walk to, the bodegas, the diversity but most of all what I miss is drinking water from a tap and the excellent Medical Care. There is no state or city like NY for that. Luckily, I began work for a developer here who is from NYC and I can continue to do my new job in NYC and travel back here some. I cannot wait to have the best of both worlds very soon. I ventured out, but will come back to the best city in the world.
3
Dear Kara,
Yes, we “remember land lines.” We still have one. And we depend on it. Reliable cell service still does not exist in many areas of Upstate New York. There is no indication that that is changing anytime soon. I doubt it ever will. At least not unless the area is paved over to resemble your beloved cities and suburbs.
16
@CC Absolutely! The first thing I did after finishing the article was to skim through the comments to see if anyone else had found the comparison of land lines to butter churns to be ridiculous. I live in urban coastal California, but have roots in rural Illinois and rural Texas, and I've traveled extensively in the rural western states. There are many areas without reliable cell service. I read the NY Times every morning and find much to like about it, but I am constantly exasperated by the myopia of the NY City-based writers and columnists!
5
@Anni
Yes, there is a bit of myopia for most New Yorkers who may travel but tend to be what I call settled livers and usually stay in NYC. Years ago there was New Yorker poster many of us framed to our walls which showed a map of the US ending at the end of NYC. It is how we see ourselves. I recently drove across the country again after 40 years of having done so the first time. Not much has changed between the coasts. Cows and corn, cattle and fields, trains, real long trains, trucks and roads. I did notice much more wiring for cell towers and industry but between the National Parks, more roads and not much else. Give is some credit though. Not all NYers are myopic in their view just some are uninformed.
@CC Your comment shows clearly how Kara is still not 'listening' to the commenter, and how her article is missing out on 'inclusivity of the audience' out here on NYT. Her comment / reply to the commenter, is certainly not an apt example for this particular article.
I always read the comments before I read the article - for a couple of reasons. One, I'm learning that newspaper headlines and the actual story are often very different from each other in terms of tone and the extent to which what's stated or implied in the headline is actually reflected in the article. And two, if I'm at work I don't always have time to read the article and the comments help me get the gist of what the article is reporting.
This is also why I get really annoyed and exasperated with the Times when they don't open each news or opinion article to reader comments. However, articles like this make me think the Times is becoming more aware of the value of reader contributions through their (mostly) thoughtful reactions and perspectives. Perhaps the publisher/editors are beginning to understand that. for many readers, the feedback from commenters is just as important as the breaking news or opinions contained in the paper itself.
8
Given that many other media outlets' discussion boards overflow with fact-free vitriol, it was disappointing when that sort of commentary began to NYT's discussions. It was long a glimmer of hope that the conversations at the Times were generally thoughtful and erudite.
Knowing how tempting it would be to just ignore the comments en masse, it restores some hope to know that the columnists are taking the time to explore responses - both supportive and opposing - with an eye to factoring in contradictory assertions.
The only way we can reverse course from the fact-free diatribe is to be open to reconsidering our own positions and beliefs. Here's to hoping such intellectual integrity expands beyond this one outpost of honest dialogue.
2
Thanks for this Opinion Post.
May I suggest that it become a regular feature of this page?
In fact, why not infect other opinion pages in the news heartland, and even suggest the same idea for the punditry on the TV commentary programs.
The concept of showing that commentary is indeed a two-way street could really revive the public interest in participating, rather than passively absorbing this genre.
Good Idea, well presented!
5
I’m a New Yorker and I love The New York Times, but I also subscribe to The Washington Post (U.S. and world situations have made me a news junkie), because it is great too. But if I had to choose between the two, I would choose the NYT—not because I’m a New Yorker, but because NYT allows readers to comment on Opinions. I also experience the comment sections as conversations, and interesting and enlightening ones at that, for lots of reasons. At times it is so frustrating to read Opinion pieces in the WP and not be able to comment, that I often choose not to read certain columnists when I otherwise might. Perhaps I have been spoiled by the New York Times, but I see it as being respected.
10
The combination of any article and its related comments makes for a well-rounded story. I'm disappointed to see an article without a comments section.
14
@Texan Hear, hear!
7
I couldn't find sane, thoughtful conversations on the internet, so I subscribed to the WaPo -- good newspaper, less liberal than the NYTimes, more fact-oriented, but the comment sections: Ai-yi-yi! It's almost as bad as Reddit or Facebook. WaPo has little, if any, monitoring of comments. The results show, making it little more than a blood-pressure-raising event to read the comments: much heat, dim light.
NYTimes' commenters often provide more information and sound reasoning than the good op-eds. I'm addicted. A place to learn, think, discuss, and grow philosophically.
I really like it when the editorialist responds to comments; that really sharpens the point. Opinion writers are really just conversation starters, much like Socrates: They don't have the answers, but they do ask the right questions, trying to discover the truth of the matter.
(Quora, an online website, is good, too, and delves into many subjects. In fact, it's an ask-me-anything site, where experts often respond.)
9
I love being able to add my two cents and it motivates me to try to better understand the issue so I can craft a thought worthy of the forum. The rare cases when my comment is chosen as a NY Time Pick are special. Thanks for letting us participate.
7
Several times (not many!) I have been very honored as a nyt's pick with my comments.
Many thanks. And wow!
Though I know it doesn't mean you endorse what I've written, to me it does mean that you think my ideas are worthy enough to share.
4
I wonder if Ms. Swisher would have gotten less dissent-ary (opposite of commentary Woody Allen paraphrase) if instead of impugning landlines she used newspaper delivery as half the answer in her comment.
From cdc.gov
“Preliminary results from the July– December 2017 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) indicate that the number of American homes with only wireless telephones continues to grow. More than one-half of American homes (53.9%) had only wireless telephones ...during the second half of 2017— an increase of 3.1 percentage points since the second half of 2016. More than 70% of adults aged 25-34 and adults renting their homes were living in wireless-only households. This report presents the most up-to-date estimates available from the federal government concerning the size and characteristics of this population.”
Couldn’t locate paper route facts but doubt there are as many households receiving print as still have landlines.
I must confess - I still have a landline and get the Sunday NYT delivered. Too many power outages and other service issues to rely solely on cell and internet. And I believe that there are certain life situations where a reliable phone is absolutely necessary, for ex., caregiving.
7
That was interesting. NYT civility requirements makes their comments interesting and informative, without descending into the depressing black hole in unregulated places like Huffington Post and Washington Post, for example. Manjoo is inspired to deeper thinking. Collins discovered that it's really hard to find any humor in this administration, but I'm glad she is still trying. Jamelle makes a great point. Kristoff points out that not all Christians are horrible people,( but it would help if more of them would vote). Krugman doubles down and is right, again. Stephens makes no sense, as usual. Leonhardt clarifies an important distinction between bad governance and impeachable offenses. Swisher stands out as someone who refuses to get the message while claiming she does. A pickup truck for recreation or city commuting is not the same thing as a work truck. Her refusal to learn even this small distinction is pretty sad and her rebuttal is so personal, rude and sarcastic it could use some civility editing.
10
@mary bardmess
The Washington Post is not an unregulated black hole! I post comments both there and here at the Times. If you want to know what a cesspool of comments looks like, try the comment threads at Yahoo and MSNBC. Then look again at the comments at WaPo and return to civilization.
4
@miriam
Agree - the WaPo is taking something of an unfair hit in this thread. The comments section in the Oregonian got so bad it's being discontinued. Police work takes resources. As for the commenter who said WaPo opinion pieces don't allow comments I'll say that the only writer there I've noticed who's columns don't get comments is George Will.
2
There would be better comments to read if the space were not limited to 1,500 characters. Although a comment at that length appears long compared to the usual shorter ones, the Times limit effectively reduces comments to three paragraphs or four short ones at best. There is little room for vivid, expressive writing or the citing of sources of information, the latter being highly important to backing up mere opinion.
Because facts are everywhere, because we are drowning in available bits of information on the internet, we make the mistake of thinking that everything is known. So much passes before our eyes that we miss highly important details which, considered carefully, can change our understanding and interpretation of events. Facts and details matter but the Times limit tends to sweep them away from view.
I have seen a number of points that I have made here online migrate to news stories and columns but, of course, who knows if the origin of those thoughts or reporting actually was from my comments? Without "sworn testimony", it is impossible to know. I can say, however, that the Times view of the world, as reflected in reporting and opinion, has been expanded greatly by the comment section. The goal should be to make it broader to keep expanding that view.
5
And nothing from Bret Stephens, of course.
3
@Dana Lawrence He's right there under Linda Greenhouse and above Kara Swisher. Come on.
1
@Dana Lawrence
But there was! Re-read the article.
1
NYT comments make me feel sane.
11
@LindaP Uh, he's right there under Linda Greenhouse and about Kara Swisher.
Come on.
As usual, Krugman cannot give an accurate response to even the letter that he cites as challenging to him. Why not be honest about where the federal budget is spent? 2.7 Trillion of the 4 trillion budget -- the largest category is transfer payments broken down as follows: Social Security 38%, Medicare/Medicaide 38%, Income security 16% (SNAP, retirement benefits), VA benefits 4%. Why not highlight that? Because it contradicts the notion that we do not spend on safety nets, healthcare, and benefits for our citizens. The weather service? Our courts system? Why throw out nonsense like that? Those items are less than 0.1% of our budget, we do spend 623 billion on defense and another 639 billion on transport, education, housing assistance as well. The reality is a great deal of money from our taxes are redistributed to support those less well-off and the government is hardly efficient, just look at how it constructs things like the NYC subway system, seven times more expensive per track mile than the next system in the world (France)! So yes, a business owner who creates jobs knows to improve things is not just spend spend spend more, but improve the underlying business. His comment is that if you tax at 73% he moves, and that is just common sense, Krugman is unmoved by that but that is par for the course of his lack of empathy for those who create jobs and actually make the economy function.
4
@michaelf I believe Social Security comes from a fund comprised of contributions required from all who work. The next generation of retirees covers the last one. I think the government may actually owe the fund money.
2
@EKB "contributions required from all who work" are taxes. "The next generation of retirees" covering the last one amounts to Congress disbursing appropriating money, like other taxes. I support both Social Security and taxes, but we should avoid euphemisms that suggest that these entitlements are somehow self-funding.
2
@EKB You are also leaving out the employer side of contributions that are funded for these benefits, payroll tax is substantial as well and comes from the business owners whether private or corporate.
1
If it has not been said already, thank you for reading our comments. It is reassuring to know that someone is paying attention.
Have a lovely new year.
7
Comparing the “ reader pics” , nyt pics, and the “all’s” give an accurate take on what the readership thinks. When a comment is more popular ie “ reader pics” than what’s the “alls” indicate, you know that the sentiment is more diverse than it first appeared.
An example is illegal immigration. The readers are farther to the right on this subject than any other. I found that surprising but an insight into where we are as a society today.
8
Long live the "conversations" via the comments section.
I've been a digital nyt reader since 2013 and truly love reading the comments as much as the articles themselves. Much has changed within the presentation of the comments over this time - "nyt approved reader" designation was dropped, only seeing replies when you choose to within "Reader" and "NYT" picks --- well done!
Today's best surprise was reading the article and a long jog through the comments on "How do I Find Beauty and Meaning in My Life".
4
I very much enjoyed this series of thoughtful comments and responses.
My only comment is this: two comments relating to transgender issues (fine, ok). None related to the racial tensions or oppression due to one's sex? Racial and women's rights are still not at par and I'm sure there were some thoughtful comments somewhere along the way.
4
Some stats would be nice. eg Most commented story, most Recommended comment, number of rejected comments, rejected to accepted ratios, bot generated comments....
7
I just find it bizarre what your comments section implementation policy is. It seems so capricious. Some high profile articles that BEG for a comments section don't have them. Some articles about mundane subjects of only minor consequence have them. Some op-eds have them, some don't. In fact, this is true for all sections: some articles have a comments feature, and others don't, with no rhyme or reason.
And then some articles add the comments feature hours-to-a-day later. Maddeningly. Teasingly.
And then some comments I submit are posted immediately, while others are not posted until hours-to-a-day later: well after a good part of their relevancy has passed. Certainly so when replying to a comment where addition response between commenters is sensible to expect.
Can the Times explain the mysterious comments implementation strategy?
23
@Matthew
Indoctrination
2
@Matthew
I don't know about other commenters, but I find it a special source of disappointment when my comment doesn't appear until after the thread has closed. It means no one can engage with me, except by upvoting the comment.
But I know that some comments will be in the pipeline when the thread closes, unless its in a long forgotten thread that never closed. And that will be a thread that no one reads anymore.
2
@Matthew Hear, hear!
1
Count me as a reader who’ll skim an article or column to get to the comments. They often prod me into a deeper examination of my own thoughts, feelings and reactions to the news and opinions expressed by the reporter/columnist, rather than the knee-jerk and emotional way I feel when reading comments on other sites (are you listening, Boston Globe?)
But no Ross Douthat? Given that his columns are among the most heavily commented upon, his omission comes as a surprise - or should it?
7
I can’t believe how insulted I felt how at reading this, ‘Remember land lines? They are next to that manual thresher and butter churn and so much more back in the very back of the nation’s metaphorical barn.’
Snide to say the least, not seeing the underlying infrastructure problem nearsighted at best. I live in a “rural” area because rents in the city are more than we can afford. 25 miles out of town gets you a roof over your head but, we are held hostage to no cell service, internet is limited to dial up or satellite. Why? Because the local phone company abandoned the lines because there was no money to be made in trying to upgrade the service. Satellite internet- Hughes Net, super fast downloads, they say. Throttled and at at the supposed unthrottled times (2-8am) no difference, data limits, so slow. I don’t know if you remember the “twirling icon” or “waiting to buffer” messages of yore. Only to have it fail because of rain or snow or UFO’s or what have you. That is you if you were able to decipher what the service tech was telling you. My partner has to drive 25 miles to the city for real internet, so no working from home while he does 24 hour shift work.
And remember not every pickup driver has a choice. Sometimes that belching, lurching, planet killing beast, bondo and baling wire, rusted literally watching the road between your feet vehicle,is the difference between meds, food, doctors. A death trap but, so is not having a way to access to services.
15
@Fox Laughed
You make a good point. My mother in law still uses her land line regularly. Trucks have a very different meaning in a place with dirt roads, than in NYC.
However, I also recall my grandmother talking about how they kept horses on the farm far longer than many others because her father was convinced that cars were a fad. Although I do still make butter by hand from time to time.
7
I'm pleased by this. My comments are always a little letter to the writer.
3
Thanks for this column. I wondered if the columnists themselves ever read the comments. It's good to know that they read at least some of them. I found THIS column both refreshing and thought-provoking.
4
I join with many of my fellow commenters in saying that we deeply appreciate this service, and even more deeply the fact that it is "juried" and not just a telephone-book sized compendium of one-liners and regurgitated garbage from any reader with a computer (excuse me-a phone!). See, e.g., the Washington Post, that I've stopped reading for this very reason. Free-for-all comment/idiocy is also what makes the wasteland of Facebook a significant contributor to the decline and fall of our country, which is playing out before our eyes-and keyboards. If you are ever tempted to eliminate the comment service for cost reasons, please consider a price increase instead. There is nothing else out there to replace it. I also think that it would be productive if your op-ed writers chose to respond to the commentariat more frequently than once a year. As a Central timezone dweller I also question the built-in bias of early-published comments in the Times' picks, tho I recognize that this bias doubtless introduces cost efficiencies at your end.
15
Sorry. I just don't buy it. This is boosterism. "Gosh darn it, we do a tough job and, gosh darn it, at the end of the day, I think we all deserve ten stars way, way up, darn it."
I once had to get into an 11-week fight over a simple error of FACT in a William Safire column. "We checked with Mr. Safire and he doesn't feel the error merits correction" was the second response I got. The first? Even though I stressed that I was writing about a factual error? That it was an opinion column, and opinions could not be corrected.
Your paper's standards have been slipping for a long time. You're gonna need to do a lot more to rebuild trust. Maybe admitting how biased your coverage of Bernie Sanders has been? That would be a good start.
3
What strikes me most about the NYT comments is how civil they are, compared to the kinds of comments we had when social media first allowed people to talk back. I guess it’s similar to the music videos that MTV aired when it first appeared: mostly violent, sexist stuff before creative people discovered the possibilities. Or maybe you just edit comments well.
3
I have been a Times reader for 44 years. Recently, I have been disappointed more than once in crafting a comment in the Times that was constructively critical of the way it was written, sourced, framed or all 3 only for it never to see the light of day. It feels like the Times has become more thin skinned when it comes to feedback.
14
I’ve had the opposite experience. I don’t how many times I’ve ripped the paper for its left wing bias, but most of my comments are published anyway. Often they aren’t published right away, however, so I suspect a yellow light goes on, and the comment goes to a different level of review, but they get in anyway. I think it’s actually a plus to be pro-Trump and conservative because most of the comments are pro-Democrat and for impeachment, so a little balance is needed. I hope I don’t sound like I’m gushing with appreciation because I really can’t stand most of the news coverage and op-eds.
2
I subscribe to the digital versions of both the Times and WAPO. I almost always read the comments sections of most articles unless there are none. With the Times I always get a notification when my comment is approved. Every now and then it get's highlighted. That's always a good feeling itself. Every now and then my ego takes over and I decide I've just changed the world...just a tiny little eensy weensy bit.
Thanks
8
I enjoy skimming through the comments looking for the rare one that is not anti-Trump or spoon fed by the left wing propaganda machine. Not surprisingly nary a one was to be found in this compilation of authors’ comments on their favorite comments. The NYT doesn’t have enough dissent these day. Even the Lifestyle, Food, and Fashion sections all reflect the same point of view.
11
@Edward I agree even though I am very anti-Trump. The biggest issue for which I see very little disagreement, in the articles or editorials, is immigration, which is never questioned or analyzed. And the comments are generally in lock step with the Times position, which if not actually "open borders", is effectively this. The growth of the population in the United States, driven by immigration, is actually one of the largest issues facing our country, especially environmentally. But this is never questioned by the Times editorialists, or by the comments.
4
Often times reading the comments section completes the pictures like the function of democracy that is why the columns and the comments to a certain extend are unextractable parts
1
Comments on the Comments. Sometimes, it is definitely absurd those comments you pick as a "Times Pick". It's not just that I disagree with the substance of the comment, I can get over that, but it is the "ridiculous" "illogical" elements that I cannot get over. Also, why do you "close comments" on a topic of high interest at numbers less than 500. Finally, and I've asked for this before, why can't "FIND" (control F) be used to find a Commentor we like to follow like "Socrates"
8
The comments on the NY Times site are far above the usual prattle on other sites. It is a real revelation to read many of them.
11
Are you saying they read ALL our comments? Then how do they have any time left to write?
3
Often this is the best part of reading any article in any publication. The comments speak volumes, even the most outrageous and error-riddled ones.
I love the comments section, and am disappointed when certain articles don't include one.
5
In my opinion anyone wishing to post a comment should be required to use their full real name.
5
I teach adolescents with HIV. I find many of your articles dealing with subjects like the development of curative pharmaceuticals leave out HIV entirely. This leads me to conclude that there is still a lot of stigma, bias, and the assumption that AIDS is over because antiretrovirals have saved so many lives.
But you never, ever touch "saved so many lives for what."
AIDS is not over. Even when the rhetoric says you can lead a normal life.
This is simply not true, and the writers at the New York Times typically leave HIV out of the curative equation. Even covering medicine. Sometimes my dissent gets published. Sometimes not. I assume that the times my comments about -- not HIV, but living with HIV -- do not get published because even with a focus on the development of pharmaceuticals, HIV is off topic. Forest. And trees.
Living with HIV is in no way a "normal existence." The word living is supposed to mean by inference that any life at all is "worth" being alive for. The New York Times does not entertain unorthodoxy. Okay, you take antiretrovirals, but for what. An existence that requires you to interact with the medical community to the point of sheer abuse. The term abuse and the term medical community are not copacetic with a POV that skips over any quality to life at all.
I have been abused so many times by medical professionals, it's all beginning to blue into the supposition that if I don't allow myself to be abused, I will die. You never cover quality of life.
1
would like to see more stories and the comments supporting women's sex based freedoms and sex based spaces
3
Brokenhearted to read the rural vs city sniping. Where has this come from?! Why now? Both have wonderful people and attributes. And both have serious challenges to negotiate. America needs to give her head a shake and shake hands.
9
I trust NYT readers as much as—if not more than—NYT columnists.
I rarely read NYT columns and articles without immediately following up by reading a dozen or so comments from among the top-voted readers’ picks.
If columnists have used faulty logic or have missed critical angles and nuances of a story, one can always trust NYT readers to spot them.
12
Perhaps I can put together a go fund me page for for the Public Editor position and we can look at this on a regular basis.
8
Many times I like the comments better than the column.
The times certainly does have a smart and funny base of readers.
16
Maybe one of these days you'll hire a columnist who is a scientist or a mental health professional. For now you have people talking about their personal experience as if it's fact or science when it is not.
5
I'll add my two cents, if only for the opportunity to add to the irony of being among the hundreds commenting on an article about comments.
Happy New Year NYT contributors and readers.
4
I'm glad to see the comments section of the NYT staying the course, without any major changes throughout the years. I would guess that using a moderator to filter out comments, and also that the responses to comments aren't immediately visible.
I used to read The Atlantic, including their comment section, but the owner decided that the comments turned into a shouting match - so, instead of managing the comments section, they discontinued it instead. Yeah - you could write a letter to the editor, but it had to be written in Queen's English and only portions would be published. In other words, the owner was protecting the writer from criticism. And now there's a paywall....
3
I'm an electronic subscriber and am heartened and pleased at the content of the opinion pieces and the public responses published. I've often wondered if a narrow topical compilation of the articles and opinions with the 'top 5' public responses (in .pdf form), could be offered at the end of month for download. Perhaps too, a retrospective as to the subsequent impact of the reporting. Educate, inform, correct, amplify - towards consensus and civic education and engagement. Just a thought, thank you all the same.
3
It could be interesting to have some of the Times editors discuss "Letters to the Editor" they've chosen to publish.
1
Nice to know that the columnists read the comments. Now, for your New Year's Resolution, I suggest that you get rid of (my preference) or rename (perhaps "A Potpourri of Reactions" might do the trick) what now passes for editorial endorsement as "NYT Picks," which include some comments resembling statements that the Earth is flat or the President of the United States is sane.
7
Maybe "our writers" are not reading quite enough. Comments which question the writer's assumptions or dubious factual assertions stand maybe a 50% chance of appearing. The odds appear to vary, depending on the writer.
And "NYT Picks" overwhelmingly reflect the Times' assumptions and prejudices, re-affirming the point of view of already expressed in print.
Journalism has got to be among the thinnest skinned of professions, which is a propensity not to be encouraged.
11
too bad we readers can't pick what comments to include here. It's a very carefully, edited group of comments. Not very brave.
6
Excellent writers, Expert Journalism, The World needs The New York Times
6
Better writing comes through better reading. Re-writing requires re-reading. The content of what we write about requires searching and refining the content requires research. You do it all of course. I have had many gripes about how The Times has covered this or that story in our civic and social lives but I have never found cause to complain about the quality of what I have found in this extraordinary journal. Hooray for the free press! You fine professionals at The Times strive for the truth and for quality. It is no wonder you are the most respected newspaper in the good old USA. You are THE standard. You set the bar for all of your cohorts. I salute what you do and count myself and our nation lucky that you exist and thrive. Live long and prosper.
6
Who read this article, at each step quickly scanning the commenter's name to see, on a lottery-win percentile, that it's yours ???
I did.
3
@Lorcán
And Ireland made the cut, at least.
3
I appreciate the thoughtful commentary moderated here. I used to be able to participate but no longer get notified of my comments. Somehow the mechanism got disconnected and the service reps could not find a problem. Odd. I wonder if this has happened to others.
2
@kj
It did about a year ago. Can’t remember how it got fixed. Call again. Could be something with safari, or how the nyt app was installed. Good luck!
3
I think Jennifer Finney Boylan does not really "get" that comment. It's not about gnarlyness or not loving trans people, it's only about how a part of that recent "teen trans wave" (with the irreversible transition follow-through then programmed) among the very young smartphone-native population could possibly be what was called a fad earlier. Now a viral idea. My smartphone and social media-addled teenage daughter told me the coolest Influencers are trans. It's somewhat lame to be (only) a boy or a girl, maybe even un-natural. Isn't being fluid better than being rigid? (Depends on the context I would say) So my daughter came out early (pre-pubescent) as "cosmosexual" because it was clearly the right thing to do (why exclude anybody?). Those very young people often would like to have the same "filters" or "plug-ins" available for their bodies like those they have for self-representation on Snapchat or the Gram. But then, as fads or self-identification journeys go, it's way easier to switch back from say being Vegan, than to switch back genders / sexual equipment post-op / chemo.
And, no, I did not say here that being trans is a fad (a note for the hard-of-reading people).
6
Whether I agree with a comment or not, I find the NYT's Comments section to be very useful to our public discourse.
We can all learn some things from one another...
A Happy, Healthy, and Peaceful New Year to All...
12
I’m just commenting on this to be meta. Like, grad school meta.
3
I love the NYT comments section. My only wish is that there was a way to see newer comments without having to scroll through everything you just read. Once upon a time the comments were on pages and were numbered so you could always start where you left off. I know we’re in the Facebook era but maybe the Times could ponder on that?
Thank you!!
8
Oh, good. I was worried that just an algorithm read my comments, searching for vulgar words and inflammatory things. I was disappointed, though, in most of the selections by the writers. From the comments I read there were far more pithy and compelling comments made.
4
It’s the technology stupid. It’s the difference between a product and a process. Those who read the hard copy version are missing out, are excluding themselves from the conversation. Writing is a creative process that moves in sometimes unpredictable and surprising ways. As I write this I see connections and discover insights that otherwise would not emerge. My understanding is deepened by responding not only to the author but to other commenters. Each article becomes a conversation starter rather than a static statement. I love it.
3
I cant help but laugh at seeing the top issue being discussed is language policing and handwringing about word choice and “inclusivity” and PC garbage. Shaming and scolding and elitism. The 2010’s has seen this paper descend into a spiral of nonsense and identity, narrative driven millennial babble. Such a fall.
7
I have to admit that the comments section on opinion pieces is quite possibly my favorite thing about NYT. I believe I learn so much more by reading what "real" people have to say than (this will sound harsh) the predictable corporate-sanctioned propaganda that professional columnists churn out on a daily basis. And yes, as frustrating it is to see scores of people opposing the things you hold dear, it does affirm my faith in humanity. Thank you posters, one and all!
12
VERBOSITY - the primary disease of NYT writers.
See "A River Runs Through It" - write, cut in half, write, cut in half again.
For years I've been cramming my attempts to describe the state of our union to an uneducated public into the 250 words allowed for letters to the editor of local newspapers. IF ONLY NYT writer would do a little bit of the same for their articles then readers would be saved some precious minutes of which a day has too few.
OR: Implement a scientific paper format with an abstract at the beginning that summarizes the article. Or would that be too much VALUE ADDED?
4
Well, I'll be gobsmacked! I made the cut! Thank you, Nick Kristof and Rachel Harris! You really made this little old lady's day!
11
@Jackie
Congrats! And happy new year!
5
The Times needs better and more compassionate reporting on animals. Mr. Kristof wrote about the suffering of chickens, how many years ago? Five years ago. The Times doesn't really seem to "get" animal issues, and should hire a full time reporter or two to investigate. Even the Post publishes articles by Gene Baur. The Times actually seemed to support the Australian massacre of cats. The only thing as vile as cruelty to animals is the abuse of children. Mr. Kristof reported on the suffering of children in Yemen and Venezuela. I guess Mr. Kristof is the conscience of the Times and a voice for the most vulnerable. But there is a dearth of reporting on animals, and guess what? There are thousands of other species besides humans who deserve a voice in the Times.
3
I’m impressed by neither the comments nor the responses. This is especially true when income inequality and wealth hoarding is part of the story. In addition to being a paper of record the NYT is a paper of privilege. It caters to the top 20% of the economic ladder and often represents or defends their interests. The basic theme of “getting rich, being rich etc, etc isn’t a crime flows through the comments and associated articles & opinion pieces. This despite the fact that wealth is accumulated and hoarded through ethically suspect and legally dubious means including rent seeking, price gouging (especially pharmaceuticals) and monopoly capitalism. Is the legal theft of wealth by the wealthy from everyone else a crime? Perhaps not but as the 2008 Great Recession and the response by the federal government and that bastion of financial fraud Wall Street has shown it should be. So is being rich a crime? Only when you steal money from the wealthy or with a gun. When you do it by being clever and manipulative its just good business and surely not a “crime”. After all the prisons aren’t full of “rich” people you know. As Scrooge said about the “surplus population, are there no prisons, are there no workhouses”. The working class has little voice in the NYT & they call this paper "liberal", now that's a joke eh?
7
I wish "The Comments section were closed" more often. While I get that the freedom to comment sells papers, and inspires virtual dialogue, it also enables us to dig in and tribalize ourselves from our fellow readers. While NYTimes picks helps to filter through/out, most of the animus seems to exude during the actual comment writing.
Maybe each successive comment MUST pick up from the previous one's concluding letter or something, XoXoXo. Or, structurally it must be a "feedback sandwich".
What a nice year-end gift -- an piece about comments and an opportunity to comment on it! Now that's an echo chamber I can relate to, relate to, relate to.... But seriously, thanks for "needing our voices", and for keeping things civil in this space. More than once have your moderators saved me from myself by deep-sixing my sometimes intemperate words.
I shudder to think what 2020 holds in store. Let the comments sections of the NY Times, at least, remain a haven for civil discourse in this most uncivil of times.
7
I am a blue dot in a red state. I have many educated, liberal friends, but we are pretty much living by the small-town wisdom not to discuss politics and religion in public lest relationships be frayed. In my daily life I have to very carefully gauge how much I can share ideas and push the envelope without offending too much.
It is such a consolation to come to the NYT website and find a community of kindred spirits. I spend as much time reading the comments as I do the articles. I treasure hearing from people from all over.
13
For those who are asking for more opportunities to comment, please remember how the newspaper industry is struggling economically.
Advertising revenue began to decrease about 30 years ago, and many excellent newspapers are shells of their former selves. Some examples are: The Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, Chicago Tribune, Detroit Free Press, San Jose Mercury News, (Louisville) Courier-Journal, Boston Globe (sold by the New York Times), and the Wall Street Journal. Readers of the New York Times are surely aware that this newspaper has undergone several rounds of staff cuts, and now has few copy editors.
Also, see this story from the Washington Post last week on ghost papers and news deserts:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/ghost-papers-and-news-deserts-will-america-ever-get-its-local-news-back/2019/12/25/2f57c7d4-1ddd-11ea-9ddd-3e0321c180e7_story.html
Reporting, writing, editing, illustrating, and formatting local, national, and international news and opinion for print and digital readers on a 24/7 cycle is very expensive.
Add the competition from Fox News and questionable sources on social media, and we should realize how important it is to support organizations such as the Times, which go to great lengths to verify real, accurate news.
During this difficult period, with the future of our government and our planet in question, we are fortunate to be able to comment.
I trust the Times uses its best judgement on how to assign its resources.
7
The major Portland paper, The Oregonian, just announced that it is ceasing to provide a reader comments service in its digital edition. The announcement came with the comment that this has been the case with many news outlets/providers, chiefly because — in the absence of moderators — the dialog has often turned mean or snarky. Specific mention was made that the New York Times has the staff to properly moderate comments, and I hope-hope-hope that means that the NYT will continue to have these comments. I feel as if we who read and write the comments are a community in and of ourselves!
10
As meta as it gets...
2
In the Trump era, I find myself checking the title, skipping the opinion article, and going straight to the comments.
Do you blame the opinion writers for reading the comments?
I'm sure they too find the comments more entertaining and informative than their own opinion pieces.
6
that's like going to the bookclub meeting without reading the book, and then offering "insight" into the book during the meeting. I for one skip comments from people proudly announcing they skipped the article.
1
@karen, "bay are"
OTOH, I respect others even if they can't spell or come to the book club without finishing what they started.
12/31/2019 11:53 AM CST
@karen "bay are"
In contrast, I respect what others have to say, even if they take pride in showing us all how they can't spell right.
Still, it appears that comments from readers do not really register. However they would if The Times had a Readers' Representative again. If an editor representing the paper's readers could knock on the doors of editors and reporters and take them to task for mistakes and biases, and then publish a column about it in the very same newspaper, then the comments from readers would really matter.
It's time to bring back the Readers' Representative, and give Times readers a real voice.
7
@Sean
Yes, NYT, no sooner did you abolish the position of public editor than you hired a gender editor.
Misplaced priorities, much? Can you explain why a gender editor is more important than a public editor?
I often wonder who chooses the comments to be printed and why. My comments are very often printed and very quickly. I never say anything pejorative and follow rules of good discussion. However, recently I wrote about David Brook's columns and wondered whether he writes for the general public or just for himself. Using words which require a dictionary, like epistemology, makes me wonder. Yes, with a doctorate I use that word ,but appropriately.
Perhaps it was thought that I was criticizing Brooks. Maybe I was. For he does have something important to say, but the way he writes does limit his reading audience.
@Beverly
English has a very rich vocabulary which can express many complexities and shades of meaning. Why shouldn't writers feel free to use it?
The only problem with the comments section is that whoever gets there comment in first is likely to be the reader's pick and so the same commenters get chosen over and over again. And I have no idea what criteria the NYT's choices are because they are all over the place. Having reader comments though, does democratise the discussion. I usually enjoy reading the comments more that the columns because they often raise great points the author didn't think of, but I have to say that the liberal bias that has come to this paper is truly disappointing. I've been a reader for 40 years quality of the journalism has steadily diminished.
7
@thewriterstuff Excellent observation about the "Readers Picks" from someone in the Central time zone.
2
This is a nice column and idea. It helps expose your journalists to some perspectives they had missed, so that's good, too.
I recently sent a comment on an article by the Reader Center that ended: "I’d like to see more evidence that the Times reads all of this reader input." I consider this column a start; not proof of what you claim in your title.
I've had close to 400 comments published now, but got responses from the author probably less than five times. My points are almost always on the unique side. I would think if they are read, the ratio would be somewhat higher.
Still, as I also wrote in that comment: "This is the right direction for the Times," as well as: "You need to go further."
Most of the articles that make it on the NYT homepage are advocacy news and opinion, trying to make a point and trigger an emotional response rather than tell the news the old fashion way, with all the pro and cons.
All too often, the NYT writers ignore all (inconvenient) facts and valid opinions that might stand in the way of what they are presenting/selling (usually, outrage toward x, w, z) and some of the comments will always bring to light things ignored in the byline, or in the NYT coverage at large.
I usually decide after the headline and the lead paragraph if this is real unbiased news or advocacy news. In case of advocacy news (which is 90 percent of the times) I jump to read the comments to glean all the facts that I know the byline will be missing.
6
Gail Collins annual Worst Cabinet member column is also a highlight. It is a great summary of the year of Trump’s Maladministration.
The worst columns are those filled with factual error, by commission, omission, or distortion.
Rep. Sensenbrenner’s recent column on the House Impeachment process was one of the worst. He simply regurgitated the regurgitated talking points of the House Republicans. It was a column full of misstatements, omissions, and distortions. And it was devoid of any attempt to address the substantive issues.
I agree that diversity of opinion is vital. But allowing misstatements, etc. without correction is not contributing to the civic dialogue. It is enabling gaslighting and propaganda.
4
The most impressive and important piece of reporting for me in the Times recently is the revelation the 45 million pieces of child pornopraphy are uploaded to internet servers each year and the govenment, though this activity is illegal, seems incapable of holding responsible these perpetrators and the internet platforms which enable them.
Mark Muhich
Jackson MI
3
@Mark Muhich The key word, "seems". Yes, the "government" COULD interfere/censor/edit/violate everyone's privacy, but, so far (at least obviously) they have not. Where is the line between liberty and license?
On the other hand, as Snowden informed us (was ANYONE listening?!?) the IC "sweeps up" ALL digital communications data, meaning "that call" is there, complete audio, in the "cloud", and accessible by those with the right clearance. What happened to what was once called "common sense"?
1
We do appreciate Kristof but he has blinders on when it comes to "religious leaders" even in his response here. Is not Rev William Barber a Religious leader in the tradition of MLK? Are not mainstream ecumenical leaders worthy of inclusion? Episcopal Bishop Michael Currie, or the ELCA, Bishop Elizabeth Eaton, or J Herbert Nelson, Stated Clerk (leader) of the PCUSA. Neglecting mainstream yet marginalized leaders who are part of the ecumenical community in the US and Globally does a disservice and contributes to the persistent caricature of "religion" especially Christianity, by the media. (See National Council of Churches, World Council of Churches etc).
4
@Karen Hessel i don't think Kristof meant to ignore the fact that the Rev William Barbers are out there and influential. The problem is the modern day "Fatherô Coughlins" are now in vast numbers with pulpits and tv ministries and huge audiences for each. One right win Baptist Pastor in Houston has 40,000-50,000 parishioners and tv time every week. These preachers have far larger audiences and reach those audiences far more often with their right wing pro Trump stuff than the William Barbers EVER will.
Great to hear that the Times' writers read the comments. What would really make my day though is to learn that Donald Trump reads the comments, or at least has someone read and explain the comments to him.
11
Don’t hold your breath! If trump were the kind of man who would read comments - or even articles in the Times - he would not be the sad excuse for a man that he is.
1
@Jay Orchard Funny!
1
@Jay Orchard Donald Trump reads only what he wants to read, listens only to what he WANTS to listen to, believes only what meets his narcissistic needs, and spins fantasies of his own creation about what he reads and hears into what some people think are facts.
1
I notice healthcare didn't make the cut despite it being a predominant issue for many Americans. I suspect MFA has been put on the back burner due to concerns over cost. But you can't separate the cost of healthcare from the cost of health insurance. In the final analysis, MFA costs less because it's non profit.
As for the fear of losing your current doctor, people were also afraid of the Affordable Care Act at first. Now they want it fixed instead of going directly to MFA. But it may not be possible to fix Obamacare and keep it affordable.
Maybe Americans just aren't ready for MFA yet. But as a Canadian I can tell you, if we can do it, you guys can certainly do it. Just don't try to go there overnight. Do it step by step thru gradual expansion of Medicare and Medicaid.
And Happy New Year to all our American neighbors.
8
Excellent. Thank you.
Technology has come under attack, most recently after the spread of false stories in support of political candidates. I still think it has been for the good - agreed, not all of it good - as exemplified by the Comments section. This section would have been impossible without modern technology. I also think that the reason the world is not seeing as many pogroms - not just Hitler, you can go as far back as you want in history and you can find the tribal barbarism mankind is capable of - is because of the rapid dissemination of what news brought about by modern technology.
I've been reading the Times since high school, and I'm now 65. If life were to leave me destitute, I'd still find a way to pay for an online subscription. The paper version at the library is no longer good enough.
The reader comments are often very insightful, rich and thought provoking. Sometimes, I'll admit, to jumping straight to them after reading a headline.
The comments are also humbling. They remind me of how little I know and how wise, collectively, we can be. I feel as if I'm a room a very thoughtful people and learning from them.
20
Paul Krugman in a landslide! Virtually every column he writes shines with truth, brilliance and clarity. We desperately need his voice in these muddled and darkly troubled times.
11
I often read the comments and sometimes there are pieces for which there is no option for comments and I am disappointed by that. I wonder how that decision is made.
Our democracy depends on the reasoned sharing of opinions and we are having less and less of that with the severe polarization that we now have in our country. We need some updated version of the New England town meeting. In the absence of something like that, the columns and their comments and the reactions to the comments allow for an interchange of ideas in a somewhat public forum that we need so much now in our troubled nation where respectful exchange of ideas is so hard to find.
8
Fun and interesting article. However, I felt that Kara Swisher definitely did NOT get Steve C's message. She refers to the "bajillion other people from rural areas" in a way that reveals her condescension to people living in rural areas and, by extension, her superiority as a city dweller. I assume that Kara isn't growing her own lattes, but Steve and his neighbors are probably doing something that contributes to her ability to live comfortably in a city and pop down to a store for her groceries, etc., and he needs his truck in order to do so. I completely agree with the desirability - the urgent necessity!-- of getting away from climate-killing motor vehicles (and have done since 1975 or so), and I suspect that when rural-dwellers can have access to a reasonable alternative, that will happen (be good to step this up, of course...). But Kara S's tone came through loud and clear to me. By all means, live in a city -- one less person underfoot out here in Western Mass -- but don't forget that it's rural dwellers who are making it possible for you to do so.
14
Some of the commenters are almost as familiar to me as the op-ed columnists. By now you can almost tell which side of the political divide they fall in just by reading their names. And, just like the columnists some enlighten, some provoke thought and others infuriate.
My favorite commenter was Dr. Larry Eisenberg and I still miss reading his take on the world around us.
9
Did something happen to him?
@jo
He passed away.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/26/obituaries/larry-eisenberg-dead.html
1
Thank you NY Times for the platform and thanks writers for reading our comments.
Mr. Krugman, one area in the Federal budget that can provide huge savings is the military spending. We can divert half of the military budget to social programs and still be as safe or safer than now.
11
Thank you NY Times for the platform and thanks writers for reading our comments.
Mr. Krugman, one area in the Federal budget that can provide huge savings is the military spending. We can divert half of the military budget to social programs and still be as safe or safer than now.
5
Thank you NY Times for the platform and thanks writers for reading our comments.
Mr. Krugman, one area in the Federal budget that can provide huge savings is the military spending. We can divert half of the military budget to social programs and still be as safe or safer than now.
1
Some of the opinion writers consider comments that make them think about their piece more, others look to people who disagree with their points and reconsider or think about how they could retool their arguments...Bret Stephens holds up only the comments that perfectly and exactly agree with his opinion piece. Color me shocked.
13
Sometimes I am overcome with my thoughts in response to news or editorials. I need to express them somewhere. My family and friends owe a huge debt of gratitude to the NYT for providing this excellent forum. Because of this space, they don’t have to listen to me carry on about my ideas quite so much. Fortunately, maybe because of this space, I still get to spend time with those loved ones. Thank you, NYT.
14
A story that sticks out in my mind was a piece of video journalism about losing the family farm. I'm sorry I can't remember the title. Like many stories in the Times that hold real value for me, it touched on experience that I know a little about, but have never been able to journey into on a deeper level. The Times provides that larger journey and allows me to see insights that would have been hidden otherwise. Learning at this level has always fed something in me.
Also I value stories about racial and gender diversity because these issues are not ones I was raised to understand or pay attention to. And that was a grave mistake. Charles Dickens noted in "A Christmas Carol" that we're all fellow passengers to the grave, no matter how else our lives are distinguished from one another; I think that while we're on the journey we need to value all our presences.
8
The one NY Times' writer that has really impressed me concerning readers' comments is Elaine Sciolino, who writes about France and French cultural issues. I can remember her carefully considered responses to readers' comments about one of her articles. I felt she was engaged in a conversation with the readers and demonstrated respect about the views that they had expressed, even though she very probably knew a great deal more about the topic.
4
I love reading the comments in the NYTimes, but the Opinion page is, IMHO, marred by too many conservative voices: namely, Douthat, Stephens, and Brooks. It’s not that I don’t appreciate voices and positions contrary to my own. It’s that these three conservative voices get to set the agenda way too often. I find myself wasting time articulating why the framing these three men bring to the issues is so profoundly misleading, and it’s getting old. The paper could use an infusion of new blood on the Opinion page: perhaps an atheist, a scientist, an artist, and a true leftist, as regular contributors.
18
I disagree. I find the range of opinions serves a salutary function. I am surprised that you include David Brooks though. He used to be a doctrinaire conservative but his changed and more nuanced views over the past few years has been very interesting to me. My fantasy is that he has been in psychoanalysis and has grown and deepened his understanding of himself, other people, and the complexity of our world.
7
@Kryztoffer Douthat has been far more interesting in the past couple years as he has struggled to come to grips with what now passes for the conservative consensus, and increasingly registers his disgust, albeit in muted tones. In contrast say, to Krugman, who has become increasingly dogmatic as the disaster plays out. Douthat has become one of my favorites and I deeply respect his candor.
3
@Kryztoffer Douhat, Stephens and Brooks are not real conservatives but rather dissident conservatives. No conservatives feel represented by them. Lou Dobbs, Tucker Carlson, and Laura Ingraham are representative as conservative voices. I suspect one of the three you mention is also CIA friendly, but I will bot mention his name.
of
1
I missed Kitty P's commment to Linda Greenhouse. It makes me smile too, but also sums up the gun debate's insanity in one sentence.
7
The Comments are often fascinating. Way to go NYT and thanks to the writers!
8
I may have had some comments removed because they were less than civil. And actually, I appreciate that. A little nudge toward civility is welcome in my book.
7
Always turned to the Letters To The Editor page before reading the op-eds back when there was only the print edition. Now, having the weekend print and weekday electronic, I turn to comments. I like the Times' comments, for the most part, because they are somewhat moderated, free from name calling, and often have an additional point of view to add to the story that the writer might have missed. I have completely eliminated non-moderated comments from my online reading, especially huffington post (although I understand that's changed now) and facebook. Who really wants to play in the mud with trolls?
8
I don't know about the Wiccan philosophy, but St. Augustine said, "Love God and do what you will" in the 3rd or 4th century.
3
I hope that the OP ED writers will appear at round table discussions in 2020; opinions need to be aired during this
election year. The issues which need to be aired:
What can be done to ensure fair elections
Who are the best candidates who espouse republicanism
according to Abraham Lincoln
I hope commenters and OP ED writers will ask each other
what topics need discussing ….and exchange views to
encourage enlightenment ...
2
Moderation improves the quality of the comments, and the opportunity to get a Times Pick or a Readers Pick challenges one to write well. I sometimes wonder whether the comments wouldn't be even better if everyone wrote under his or her actual name rather than a pseudonym. Maybe when I retire I will switch to my actual name, but for now anonymity allows me to write more freely than I otherwise would, particularly on topics such as healthcare policy where my opinions could conflict with the interests of my employer and of some of my clients.
7
@617to416
Shout out to you, 617. I frequently come across your comments, and they always stand out as being among the best. You never disappoint. Thank you for your contributions.
4
@J.C.
Thank you! It's nice to know that others appreciate what you write . . . and that all that time I spend procrastinating on the NYT website isn't completely wasted :-)
1
The comment that has stayed with me this past year is from the reader who replied that he/she didn't hate liberals or their ideals (nationalized health care, better schools for all, livable minimum wage etc etc). He/she just didn't want to PAY for them!
4
@Demetroula Except, I imagine, to the extent that reader benefits directly :)
Nicholas Kristof gets my vote. Not only does he appear to be a thoughtful, kind journalist, but he answers comments in real time with the same consideration and thoughtfulness he projects in his opinion pieces.
15
I much appreciate the NYT for giving me the opportunity to comment. It is the only form of social media I participate in because it is tightly moderated. It gives me a chance to clarify my position and feelings about a particular issue because I'm forced to write clearly and to the point. Getting reaction from my fellow readers also lets me know whether my point has any value. There is one type of article however that seems to evoke the worst in my fellow readers and that would be the responses to any article dealing with the segregation problem in NYC public schools. I would be interested in asking your fine education corespondents, who persist in writing articles on this topic, why they are inevitably are pelted with comments that are often laden with thinly veiled racism and disdain for the lower classes. It seems surprising and out of character but sadly, maybe this reflects the true nature of the readers of this great newspaper. I'd love to ask the editor about this also. Anyway, keep up the great work and for allowing us to give our opinion also.
4
I usually learn more from the comments than from the essay itself. Sometimes I just skip the piece altogether.
14
It's very interesting to see that columnists do read the comments, and that most of them take the experience as a kind of conversation, a step toward further thought on their topics. And I'm very glad that the comment examples chosen were from the wider community of readers, not the small gaggle of "top commenters" who seem to sit by their screens all day, avidly appending the same notions to so many Times pieces.
4
Kara Swisher, you are off the mark again in response to the comment. I am a rural person with a pickup AND a landline. There is no cell phone access where I live. (Also, I shake my goat milk in a jar to make butter. I have not graduated to a churn yet.)
13
Not sure everyone knows, but some of the columnists also do weekly webcasts where they discuss comments made to their essays and also respond to additional comments submitted during the webcast. I am often working during it, but whenever I am able, I try to listen to Jamelle Bouie's webcast as I think he's one of the most interesting columnists the Times currently publishes.
5
Comment: Please publish every day the number of days that President Trump has not released his tax returns as promised and show the names of all the political body in office that have made their tax returns available to the public.
Also, only shown States as purple, that is, the percentage of Republican, Democrats and Independents. States are not Red or Blue but purple. It would help people understand there is very little differences between us.Thank you
3
I’m a New York Times reader since childhood (so that means around 60 years) and though I’m a former New Yorker, I am always a New Yorker. But, recently, I received a free 3 month trial to the Washington Post, so, sure, I am reading some articles there, too, and trying to compare. Though I think the quality of the articles is better in the New York Times, the NYT truly *shines* as far as the quality of the comments, hands down. It’s a vastly better conversation with fello-readers. So thank you everyone. I will stay a loyal NYT reader!
6
Thanks for the comments on comments! This is why the NYT continues to thrive and grow— in a time when civil, intelligent discourse is rare and getting more so, the writing and the comments found here can be a balm for the soul.
3
As a semi-regular commenter, first I'd like to thank the NYT for giving me a place to vent about issues of the day and publishing them. As a disabled NYC resident of 45 years, I LOVE being able to offer up my perspective through my letters to these comment boards.
While I'm not as prolific a poster on WaPo as I am here, I was thrilled to know that SOMEONE at the NYT is actually reading our posts. Anytime you guys need help with that by the way, let me know - I am famous among friends and family for being the oddball who's been known to stay up ALL NIGHT LONG reading EVERY SINGLE COMMENT following articles of interest to me even if there are a few thousand! Crazy? Maybe, but it keeps my brain on its toes and I think it's important to know how other people things, even if we're on opposite sides of the fence!
Happy 2020 everyone - see you in the comments posts!
6
@Jacqueline Tellalian I've often wondered how, many hours after posting a comment that nobody seems to like, I will suddenly get a "recommendation". Somebody must be spending a lot of time reading through literally ALL the comments! The funny thing is, if I post a comment with an unusual point of view, and get just a couple or even just one recommendation, I tend to feel better about that than when I get a hundred likes from writing something purely conventional, or "party line".
4
@TMJ Same here, although I can't say I'm not secretly thrilled if I happen to become a "Reader's Pick", which has only happened a few times. Proof there is POWER TO THE PEOPLE - and generally thinking people at that - which I'm always proud of!
1
I've been a Los Angeles Times subscriber for a very long time, and know this is too much to expect from NYT, but LAT provides the email addresses of their columnists and reporters.
Over the years I have cultivated a relationship with Doyle McManus, Michael Hiltzik, Editorial Director Jon Healey and others. I never abuse the privilege and am always respectful. I express my p.o.v. directly and see it reflected in their some of their columns.
It's refreshing to see an op-ed like this in the New York Times and know the opinions we express here are taken seriously. Just like to add how impressed I am with the way NYT conducts the comments section with literally millions of comments. I don't know how you do it, but keep up the great work...and Happy New Year, NYT!
4
The comments section is, simply, what keeps me a subscriber. It's not the opinion pieces, or the political stories (trigger warning: the Times really, really dislikes Trump), almost all of which are minor variations on a theme. I do believe Krugman will be ecstatic when one of his predictions actually comes true.
It's the intelligent discussion in the comments, pretty well moderated, at a time when many online papers have eliminated comments entirely or permit unmoderated, crude, basement level insults--from both sides.
I long ago gave up comparing the Times to its glory days of the 50s and 60s. Just pay the moderators a good salary and we'll all be happy.
10
Since Trump was elected, the Comments sections of this newspaper and the Washington Post have become my group therapy. Just when something that happened that day in Trumpville is making me crazy, I read the comments and see most other people are finding the same thing crazy, and I feel a little better.
Most of their comments are better and wittier than mine, which makes it even more interesting.
14
To me the NYT comments are a national treasure. Whatever resources you are putting toward them to keep them civil are greatly appreciated in my household. It is clear you moderate well against rudeness, vulgarity, name-calling, and the like, but I am also impressed that the comments are almost uniformly interesting. Looks like someone has gone to the effort to filter out the terminally boring and long-winded screeds I find on other comment sites -- and I do not mean the ones that are one long primal, profane scream, just ordinary sites where people drone on and one.
Whoops, as I am, right now.
Keep up the good work.
6
I'm so disappointed I didn't make the cut that I don't know what to say!
3
It is well accepted that The Times covers very well, the perturbations of American and International politics. But there is another area that deserves more attention. And that is science. Since I am a physician and a former RWJF Clinical Scholar I am fascinated by the research that goes into your online articles of the latest in science. The animations just can not be captured by the dead tree editions. May I encourage your editors to spin off these into YouTube specials, similar to your Retro Reports? They would be fantastic additions to the modern middle and high school assets on many topics. I remember the one you did on earthquake-proof buildings in San Francisco. Other topics could include Engineering, biology, DNA, Chrisp and DNA editing, the latest in brain functionality and pathology. As we age, Alzheimer's Disease, Parkinson's Disease, and the senile dementias will become a fact that most families will have to deal with. Sidebars could deal with real families and the ethical and financial ramifications of these serious maladies. Artificial Intelligence, quantum, and biological computers. The list just goes on. I just wish I had kept the ones I so admired in the past.
2
I love my landline - how else am I going to be able to use all those groovy 1970s touchtone telephones? Western Electric Sculptura anyone?
3
@Vince
In rural areas, one must have a land line. We experience several power outages during the course of a year and would have to drive quite a distance to be able to get cell service. In winter, roads may be poor, if we can get out of the driveway in the first place. High winds in summer and winter take down trees and trees take down power lines. The only way to report a power outage or medical emergency during an outage, is with a land line phone.
Landlines may seem quaint, but in rural and mountain areas, they can be a lifeline.
6
“Turned from lectures to conversations”
Oh, I wish. I would define a conversation as a back and fourth where both people have a chance to get their point across well, instead of someone with a certain amount of clout writing an article, someone else writing a paragraph (a few paragraphs if they’re lucky), and then the person who wrote the article thinking about it a bit. Maybe if it were a real conversation, we would (just for instance) be able to not have the people who write the earliest comments get a higher priority.
Although I enjoy reading many reader comments, at times I wonder how many comments are generated by trolls or, in what may seem like extreme cases, covert foreign agents, e.g., Russians, Chinese, North Korean, etc. As far asI know, there is no reliable way to discern such sources of comments.
In addition to assessing the face value of comments, stop and ponder the motivation of commenters. Are their comments biting and personal (often seen in back-and-forth exchanges)? Qualified by caveats? Scholarly? Based on apparent How-to-Think rationale as opposed to What-to-Thnk dogma?
Often, writers and commenters are trying to motivate readers to take action ("do something") based on their writing. So, what are their motivations for doing so? Even being motivated to submit comments is a reaction to what's been written. Just like this. Try to respond constructively. There's already too much ignorance and hate in the world. And for the record, I'm not a troll or foreign agent.
2
Wow, how do I pick out the best columnists? I read all of you folks in the opinion sections. I have to say, however, I have some of the best discussions with among Times' more conservative contributors. With Bret Stephens, even though I supported the Iran Nuclear Deal (still do) and am for a two-state solution re Israel and Palestine, I have learned so much from reading his essays. And Ross Douthat..I am a cafeteria Catholic at best and really want the Christian Church to stay away from politics and certainly my rights as a woman. Yet Ross writes so darn well that I really enjoy engaging in a "conversation" with him. Maureen, I am so glad that you are not picking on President Obama and have found a good target in D Trump. Gail, you make me smile when I want to cry. Nicholas, thank you for making us aware of those in other parts of the world who are in far worse shape than we here. David B, the philosopher. Paul, I am a faithful follower. David L and Michelle G, I love your politics. Charles and Frank, love reading your pieces. To my friends and commenters, you are all great, and I am humble to be in the company of such intelligent and articulate "writers."
7
@Kathy Lollock I enjoy your comments, Kathy, and thanks for this generous one.
1
I love reading the comments and often find myself rushing through the article to read them. The Post has a very different approach to their comment section and the comments are far less informative, thoughtful or interesting and are much shorter. I would like to know the Times policy regarding how it is determined which articles have comments.
4
I always find the NYTimes.com comment section to be an oasis of well-thought perspective. I'm not sure what moderating criteria is used, but among all major news outlets I've seen, the Times is far and away the best. It reflects well on my fellow readers and it reflects very well on the moderators.
7
I want to thank the comment readers who approve or dismiss comments.
It is their efforts that make the comments section what it is.
As Monica says in a few different episodes of "Friends", "It is rules that make the game fun for everyone." And it is comment readers who make the comments section what it is: insightful and civil.
Kudos to you!
7
I don't recall the column title, but Michelle Goldberg wrote one a few months ago that prompted me to offer a one-word comment - "Pulitzer".
My comment didn't go in, which is to be expected I suppose.
It was the kind of column that keeps me subscribing.
Thanks, Times. And Happy New Year, everyone.
2
Concerning Trump, I commented on the "Democracy" song.
I suggested that the Times write about Leonard Cohen's song.
"Democracy is coming to the USA"
So far, I have not seen anything in the Times on this song.
My fear is that Democrats lack focus, beyond beating Trump.
The ball seems to always be in Trump's court and he gets media.
(They might mention Pete Seeger's "Hammer" song, was well)
So, let me ask again, if the Times can write about "Democracy"
"Democracy is coming to the USA"
1
In response to a reader who identifies the bloated federal budget as a problem (and suggests "creativity and critical thinking") Paul Krugman responds by referring to the readers "misconceptions" and says "employee compensation is only 7% of federal outlays..."
Disingenuous or just missing the point?
The key words come from the reader: "the kind of [creativity and critical thinking] that happens in the private sector."
Is central planning, aided by big data, AI and the like really going to right bureaucratic bloat and inefficiency? If yes, then krugman can cite numbers, if not then reader wins.
@sk I thought Dr K missed an opportunity to point out the oversized military budget we have.
7
The reader assumed the private sector is a center of "creativity and critical thinking". There may be some areas of business where that's a fair assessment. But in the sectors that dominate our economy today, most of the creativity seems to be focused on generating a very high share price for very little long-term value.
7
@Maggie Mae as the actual commenter I don’t disagree with you. But that wasn’t my point. I was simply pointing out to Dr K that at some level, business will re-domicile to avoid excessive taxation. We can debate the level at which that happens but it will happen. Dr K didn’t really even address that in his response.
I'm struck by Stephen's understanding of nature conspiring against his transgendered identity.
I see nature as being solely neutral--one is born male of female solely by dint of a mix of chromosomes.
Nature does what nature does, there's no conspiracy in place.
5
I appreciate the comments section. It's structured so much better than other news sites.
3
I'm glad that writers read the comments, but the NY Times needs a public editor again. Sulzberger said that "social media" would act as an editor but upper management is ignoring very valid concerns raised on social media. I'm a writer and writers/reporters need editors.
6
I often read articles just for the comments! And i have been wondering when an article would be written about this new phenomenon of the comments section.
9
As the decade comes to an end. We all want to thank you for the marvelous pieces that have been written by dedicated writers.
Capturing the complex issues in the world is not an easy task to write about in a manner that doesn't alienate your audience in a time of alienation.
A simple thank you doesn't seem enough . I hope all of our comments even those which seem to be over the top give the writers something to think about. I know at times my passion on a topic gets the best of me so thank you and look forward to the continual great coverage in 20/20.
Funny point I was on the F train going to work the other morning , I actually had a seat and started reading the NYT. A gentleman sat down next to me and said" can I shake your hand." I asked why, he said because your reading a print paper and I thought I was the only one who did. I smiled and stated, "times may change but greatness remains the same". He made my day.
Thank you NYT
2
It would be interesting to have a large party in which 50% of the attendees were NYT commenters..... and 50% were Wall Street Journal commenters.
Being familiar with both....there would definitely have to be a substantial security presence.
Or am I missing something here?
2
I'm hardly inspired by the NYT writer's choice of meaningful comments, and responses. Many writers seem to most appreciate those that confirm their beliefs. Where they quote disagreement, they often choose to belittle them. A wee bit of insight before closing the door.
Jennifer Finney Boylan quotes Tinabess's observation that trans people used to be extremely rare, so can the current numbers really reflect biology, not culture? Instead of engaging, Boylan tells Tinabess to open her hear. Why not reflect on nature/nurture, construction of identities, on historical context of gender?
Kara Swisher quotes Steve from rural Texas, who needs his truck in the big muddy. Swisher's response? Keep your "climate-killing" cars, until they're replaced by something better. The US is a big country, but most people live around cities. Something like a carbon tax affects those who live in spread-apart places a lot more. So blame them more?
Also narcissism of small differences. Farhad Manjoo gut punched by a transgender man angry about "they." Or Jamelle Bouie inspired by a subtle critique of the electoral college. When the original compromise remains misunderstood, and wouldn't it be nice if someone computed the difference between small and large states back then and now? It's more than twice as exaggerated today. Why not consider getting back to where we were back then, for starters.
So no, for the most part the NYT writers don't think too deeply about comments.
2
Swisher’s comments were quite condescending.
I often spend more time reading comments than the article. More viewpoints, more value.
8
Great article, I would like to add my thoughts since I have been seeing these ads. It’s always starts out with this gorgeous man or woman on an exercise bicycle or a stair climber telling you how easy and important exercise it. Can we please make this new year an assault on the food industry. The food industry distracts and scrambles the brain so it then becomes a person fault if they are tired or over weight or need to go on a diet. Also another of my pet peeve is middle class status, from one end of the country to the other it ranges around between 35k to 75k, how anyone can live on thirty five thousand is beyond me. Also would like to see if inflation is down to around 2 percent why are companies not slashing there prices. Tires have gone up since inflation was at a high of almost 10 percent in 2013 and is down around 2 now, why is only gas prices the bellwether of how the economy is doing. Yes 2020 is going to be very interesting
2
I just wish we could comment on virtually every front page article and op-ed. The informed comments help round out or provide counter arguments that I learn from
8
I thought it was interesting that every one of the responses by the writers were more or less complimentary and provided additional insights except one. But at least Kara Swisher is consistent.
It cannot be easy reading through the comments that come in, particularly since we tend to hang on to the negative ones more than the positive ones. Thanks to the NYT writers for their attempts to bring unique insights to the broad variety of topics they write about each day.
3
The reply feature for columns and news articles is a wonderful mechanism for discourse and examination of the content. I just wish that it didn't crash and have to be repaired as often as it does.
2
As I read daily the NYT and the European press, mainly French, Le Monde and Liberation, I can say that there is a big difference in the argumentation.
In the NYT, readers will comment with their point of view, sometimes with a very shallow or angular opinion related to their self, as in Europe we try to respond to an article with depth and a sense of horizontality instead or verticality.
In Europe it is obvious that if you write a comment it is to enrich the topic and participate in a broad sense of sharing a common involvement instead of showing a very opiniated idea.
Which does not mean that the conceptual strength is less present, on the contrary.
3
@JPH Thanks for your point of view!
As others have said, the comments section in the Times is fantastic. It's always interesting, often with insights that are more trenchant and enlightening than those of the column writers.
7
I too greatly appreciate the chance to share my comments and to read the multiple perspectives of comments readers contribute. The Times is doing a good thing for its readers.
I do worry though that the community is very much not representative of the larger community. So, when I see some comments "liked" in droves and others ignored, I wonder how much that is due to this particular sub community and not representative of the American people.
6
I am a frequent commenter on the NYT and am often inspired by reading what other readers think about any given subject. This is my personal way of speaking out and being heard, thinking of it as not only a contribution to the conversation, but also a bit of therapy. In taking the time to organize my thoughts, submitting them and having these thoughts approved among hundreds of other commenters makes me feel I am not alone during these very challenging times. THANK YOU Op-Ed writers for being open to the voices of your readers. Your writing and your reading our thoughts is what makes our democracy great.
7
What frustrates me about these comments is it just shows how partisan the New York Times really is. The NYT! The gold standard in "objective" reporting. I am certainly left leaning but when a newspaper employs people with only one perspective, they fall victim to the electoral college comment above -- that Trump only plays to his base. Well the NYT sure plays to its base and rarely seems to step into the shoes of those they disagree with. It's frustrating because I refuse to watch Fox News or CNN as it's clear each has an agenda to defend. But I'm disheartened to read these comments that are anti-Trump and pro-Tax as if these are truisms in the world.
The whole point of the electoral college was to give power to states that would have otherwise not joined the union. It's the same reason that the House of Representatives allocates at least two representatives per state. How can reporters not understand (or at least acknowledge) this point? I don't believe that the Federal Government is "bloated," but I also don't believe that it is necessarily fit to tax the rich heavily simply because they make more money. And the logical conclusion is moving business out of the country. Yet...the reporter doesn't see this perspective?
It's disheartening when I want to believe in objective truth and that journalists will provide this. And so the chasm between the two sides remains and grows.
6
@Joe Bare in mind that most of the articles to which commentary may be made are opinion pieces. Opinion. Yes, some of the columnists are very liberal and progressive; others are more in the conservative category. Insofar as news articles are concerned, I have no problem with the objectivity of the NYT.
On the other hand, what Fox News does is not objective news. Their whole business model is based on conservatism and conspiracy in its worst forms. It's just a shame that so many of their viewers seem to think they are objective journalists and so form their world view based on what they're told on this platform.
4
correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the Constitution provides for at least one representative per state, not two. It does provide for two senators of course.
2
@Wayne You are right, Wayne. North Dakota, for example, has only House Member which, together with its two Senators, gives it three votes in the Electoral College which was created not to bring some otherwise recalcitrant states into the Union (that's what the allocation of House members is for), but instead was intended to assure that the elite actually elected the President. Foolish Founders! They thought this system would protect us from the likes of Donald Trump -- an incompetent rabble-rouser preying on the people's fears and prejudices.
I would like to see the occasional response from an author to a comment.
You see that in the Times of London sometimes and it is makes us commentors feel that someone is paying attention.
8
I just started commenting late this year. I often wondered whether I was just shouting into the wind (or its cruder version). Does anyone, except for maybe the 20 or so (once 70 - on a throw away short humorous comment) people who click on "Recommend" actually read my comments? Does it even matter, after all I do enjoy writing them. Sometime I make myself laugh, sometimes they are cathartic. Often, by the time I see the article there are so many comments that I only have time to read a bit more than a handful. I enjoy the comments that I do read, sometimes more than the article. Although some are just too long - boy you people really like to write and some of the commentators really can write! Sometimes the article is closed for comments when I really have something to say (boy is that aggravating!). But I think the present article comes up a bit short. There should be more articles like this. Maybe it should be a monthly thing.
5
Comments are great and they were introduced to supplant the cancellation of the Public Editor who was trying to hold writers accountable. The editors explained that the new comments will do just that hence the Public Editor will no longer be needed.
Soon after the comments that were supposed to act as a collective Public Editor have been quickly seized as yet another propaganda and advocacy tool to create the illusion of consensus and popular support on controversial issues.
Since then, it has been well to too obvious that:
1. the comments that go against the NYT narrative and are very much what a letter to a Public Editor would have been are published with either great delay, or unpublished.
2. The comments that support the narratives are published first and left there stand alone on too to gather more views and give the impression of popular support. These ones are also the ones that are picked as NYT picked.
The comments are further used to create an eco-chamber, although at first, they were supposed to supplant the letters to the Public Editor.
I absence of a Public Editor and of the fairness doctrine and of well-argued contrarian voices, who is holding the NYT editors accountable?
No wonder people more and more people outside the eco-chamber talk and notice the decline of the New York Times. But, it seems, nobody in the editorial ranks is listening.
2
One reason I like to read comments is to see where my own thinking/opinion fits in with other people. I am usually reassured that I'm not a far-out kook.
5
Just about anything from Krugman, Blow , Greenhouse. Not so much from Stephens, Brooks, Douthat. Comments from Socrates, (the missing Gemli), Bruce.
Learn so much from the comments, it's one of the most valuable aspects of the editorial page.
10
@johnnyd I miss Gemli, too.
3
@johnnyd This is a good question: where is gemli?
2
I would like to know what the guidelines are in deciding which articles allow comments and which do not. I personally would like to see more interaction on global topics, where the large circulation of the New York Times could provide some interesting insights.
4
I read most of the comments when i find that the opinion writer has not done of good job of explaining what he or she is writing about. (In these cases the subject matter is usually difficult to begin with.) In the comments i often find some Mensa IQ person who not only can further explain but is gifted with humor. Wow. Double wow.
4
I cannot recall when the NYT began its ‘Times Replies’ feature in comments, but it is a favorite for me. I’m sure I speak for many when I say that comments often are addressed —explicitly or implicitly— to the author of the article or the column, and more than anything, commenters would like to have the discussion continued by the authors. But as Plato noted in his Seventh Letter, no matter how many times one asks a question of the written page, it never responds — at least until this feature was created. Here’s hoping that it will spread to more and more columnists and reporters in the coming year.
4
Dear Ms. Harris and Ms. Tarchak,
Thank you for writing this column.
How about sharing the moderating process. Yes, there are the Community Guidelines, however they do not fully explain the vetting process.
What are the triage steps used and are the Columns Authors arbiters in what is allowed? Are algorithms and a phalanx of checkers used to filter, moderate comments in addition to Readers self policing via “Flag”.
Many Readers may wonder why it took hours upon hours to see their comment(s) published? Outside of volumes of comments when others are posted in minutes.
Why do the Columns Authors so rarely, if ever reply to comments in a thread? Paul Krugman does on occasion and more the exception than the rule. Could this be an engagement and outreach opportunity? To show the Authors actually “listen” regularly and demonstrate audience awareness?
What are the “NYT Picks” guidelines? Who or Whom actually picks?
Thank you for feedback.
6
Dear Rachel L. Harris and Lisa Tarchak, here is one subject or subject area that I hope you will communicate with us readers and especially comment writers in the year 2020:
This subject was introduced here in the Times on August 21, 2013, when a Times Editor asked Kenneth Prewitt to write a column about a subject Prewitt was an expert on, the Archaic (Prewitt's word) system used by the Census Bureau of which he had been a director.
Neither the Times nor its Newsletter, Race/Related will touch this subject and just in the past month many of my comment submissions simply mentioning his name or, even worse his book, are instantly blocked by the algorithmic review that takes place when I click on SUBMIT.
Let's see what happens now.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
2
@Larry Lundgren - Thank you Times algorithm system, you did not block this comment even though you have blocked similar comment submissions. I truly hope that the authors of today's column read this.
The New Year will soon be with us here on an island in Sweden and we will be welcoming it by being in Styrsö Church, still standing since 1752, where an entire family with last name Edin, all trained classical musicians, will give us their choices for 2020.
Sorry you cannot be with us.
1
Adding to the chorus here — a HUGE thank you to the New York Times for their well edited Comments Section and to NYT readers whose comments help me learn and understand more every day.
Thanks so very much!
5
I love the comment section. It’s the free marketplace of ideas.
If an author writes some fluff piece light on facts or which is misleading, the commenters, who are similarly it not more educated, will have no problem taking him/her to task.
3
Jennifer Finney Boylan -- There is an insidious problem lurking in the term cis-.
A trans-woman might find it important to be accepted as a woman. She might say in many cases that she is a woman. Yet she could never say she is a cis-woman. Same for men.
The term cis- is thus setting up a new label, one which is out of reach of trans-men or -women. It is a way to restore distinctions which trans- seeks to get past. It is now unacceptable to misgender someone, but it is still quite possible to do the same thing with the term cis-.
I realize that it is generally used for clarity in a complex discussion. However, it also has this capacity to defeat the efforts of the trans- movement in the very act of acknowledging it.
This needs some extra thought.
2
Sounds as if all the columnists’ favorite opinions chided them for not being a loud enough echo chamber for the opinions of the typical Times reader.
They didn’t like hearing from those who dissented so much!
3
@pedro
That's not in this piece. All the writers are appreciative of comments that made them think.
I believe that makes these Opinion Pieces so good. There are times when the columnist directly answers a comment.
1
It's not a "conversation" when there are no comments allowed on Sports articles.
It's not a "conversation" when a comment is not published because it challenges the assumptions of the article.
It is not an organic conversation when The Times selects comments to highlight, therefore ensuring they will attract more attention. Let the readers decide. (Put it on the front page, more will read. Highlight comment, same thing. You are steering viewers and driving up views by your own selections, bypassing readers. You're gaming the system.)
3
@JohnBarleycorn
I'm sorry your comments don't get more engagement and you have to go elsewhere to comment on sports. That's a tough row to hoe.
@JohnBarleycorn
Uh huh I don't think so.
There are always opposing comments and frequently they are answered by other commenters as well as the authors.
Some newspapers' comment section, such as the Sydney Morning Herald, are really not worth participating in due to the high level of censorship. Kudos to nytimes for being the opposite. However one thing the SMH does which nytimes could copy is that they show the commentator a history of their previous comments and a link to the relevant article.
2
While I've nothing substantive to say here, I couldn't resist the opportunity to comment on an article comprised entirely of comments and further comments on those comments.
This url may ultimately fold into itself, I think.
6
The last time I posted a comment it took 14 hours to post it. One of the first things I learned in Journalism 101 was
"timeliness." It's another way to shut people out of the conversation.
7
Of course your writers read comments, because often the comments are more interesting than the article. There is life in them that is often missing from your articles. However, you won't like this comment and won't publish it and your writers will never see it. And no, I am not a Trump supporter. Just a NYT subscriber of many years who never sees her comments posted. Ever. But glad to know that your writers see the comments you deem readable. Would love to see this newsaparer pull its head out of the sand and do some hard-hitting reporting about the rampant corruption in our government. Do you want to see Turmp reelected in 2020? Please stop trying to be "unbiased" and go after wrongdoing by our highest officials before it is too late!
4
Commenting on comments about comments is so meta.
2
A thanks to the NYTimes for having these comment sections. I wish more of your articles had them.
When I read the comments, it’s interesting to see the same quotes from the writers cited over and over again. I sometimes picture those authors doing a happy-dance, saying ‘I knew that would get them!’.
Keep up the great professional writing- that we amateurs can piggyback on!
1
“The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was an evangelical Christian, after all.”
No. He was not. This claim assumes that black church traditions map neatly onto the mainline/evangelical split in white churches. That is not the case now, and was absolutely not the case in the 1960s when white evangelicalism hadn’t even taken on a form that would be recognizable today.
5
Thank you to the very busy writers at the NYT for actually reading the comments posted. I treasure my subscription and feel really honored when one of my comments is published. I actually had one that was a “NYT pick” a couple of months ago, and I was thrilled, not so much because my comment was getting a lot of “likes” but that I had community, which is lacking in other parts of the internet. Thanks NYT!
4
Thank you NYT for letting us comment and for reading our commments. I regularly look at the Opinion section, scroll down and chose the articles on subject matters I am interested in (politics, gender and social issues, climate change) where I also try to comment time permitting. Reading and commenting in Europe means that you will be doing it with an at least 6-hour delay and will likely end up at the end of All comments Comments where perhaps not so many readers will get to read your comment. But that's life I suppose.
As an international subscriber, who truly cares for the future of the US and its people and has always taken a deep interest in its culture, I sometimes get the feeling that criticism from abroad in this particularly difficult phase of the US politics is not always welcome. However, I was happy to read in some of these comments that the intl. perspective is appreaciated and wellcome and this made me feel better.
3
@val I'm always glad to see comments from other countries. Thanks for being interested!
2
Commenting in the Times has been the only thing keeping me sane until the next election. Seeing that I am not the only one that knows this is all terribly wrong has been comforting. I am now engaged. I am a poll workers making sure everyone gets to vote in my little precinct and I am also enabled in voter registration- hopefully many others are as well. Turnout will save our republic. Massive turnout.
13
And what about comments written in rhyme
They spice up the dialogue from time to time
Occasionally created just for the sound
Often utilized to enhance and expound
When spoken, expressed with accents and meter
Like a song on a stage in a grand old theater
Can deliver a message causing a smile
That is the result that makes them worthwhile...
16
@Timmy M.
As did your comment.
2
I agree with many of the commenters. Quality of your reporting is excellent and opinion pieces stimulating. I have suggested to many of my friends in Wisconsin that more subscribe and read the Times. I do wish that more midwesterners wrote comments so I could sense how people in my neck of the woods view various topics. I also like the fact you email out when comments are approved and we can guage how we compare to other readers. Keep up the good work.
10
@Curt As a Badger State resident not native-born, I have come to be inured to the self-satisfaction of Wisconsinites (relics of the LaFollette/Proxmire eras) who continue to think the nation looks to us for guidance whilst the legislature destroys democracy piecemeal. I wish you luck in suggesting that more of your colleagues read the NYT!
I love reading readers' comments. It's interesting the enormous gamut people's experiences run, from those who seem so divorced from reality that I assume they see unicorns on their lawns, to those with feet firmly planted in reality. Reading the Times's comments gives one an exercise in the entire range of emotions, from envy at how smart some are, awe at the talent and creativity of others, despair at how uninformed some are, anger at how ignorant and hate filled still others, and happy appreciation at how hilarious some people are. They're a wonderful display of so many personalities and perspectives in one place. I love it.
19
I'm happy to have my suspicion confirmed, opinion piece writers do read or at least scan the comments on their articles.
I too enjoy reading the comments. Many enlighten me, some amuse me and a few make me cringe. Often you have to read many, many dozens before you find an overlooked gem - a well written, thoughtful comment that provides a novel perspective or interesting insight. Some of the best comments are not in the Times recommended and get published so late or buried in large batches that many readers haven't a chance to read them.
18
I am impressed that most of the writers take comments to heart -- especially the ones challenging or providing counterpoint to their insights -- and benefitting and learning from them.
I am not in the least surprised that Bret Stephens picks out the one that simply confirms his viewpoint, despite the very many people who provided a wide variety of relevant and fact based arguments against it. And Gail Collin's wry humor in conversation with him plays off of the perception that he will not be budged. At all.
I'm not surprised at all.
I do appreciate the columnists who listen, think, learn and grow. I grow with them.
16
And to repeat, contra Mr. Stephens, this is not about "hating" the rich (which is a sophomoric argument).
The complaint in question is not a new one. It was Balzac -- not exactly recent -- who said, "Le secret des grandes fortunes sans cause apparente est un crime
oublié, parce qu' il a été proprement fait."
"The secret of a great success for which you are at a loss to account
is a crime that has never been found out, because it was properly executed."
Well, we're in the process of finding out on all accounts, including how the much vaunted tax cuts that benefitted corporations etc. lined their pockets while exploding the deficit far beyond even what was originally anticipated.
We don't 'hate the rich,' Bret. But pardon us if we hate the crime.
But you're not listening.
2
I enjoy the comments posted by fellow NYT readers. I may not always agree with them, but I respect their opinions. It's refreshing to have a civil conversation with others, and to read other points of view.
26
@Joe It is very refreshing...healthy too...
"Getting rich is not a crime" Often that is exactly what it is.
And it's not much of a comment to pick for an author when it just proves that he only remembers the ones he agrees with.
23
@Vincent Vincent Exactly. How you got rich actually does matter. Show me a rich guy who didn't inherit his money, or actually build a new innovative business and I will show you a guy who probably took a lot of short cuts on the way to wealth. Or someone who works on Wall Street. There is a reason the vast majority of professionals - like engineers for example- may work their entire lives improving ours, but never achieve the ranks of wealth.
4
Look at the history of the Trumps or Koch family. They have left a trail of fraud and corruption.
1
I enjoy the comments almost as much as the articles. Even when I disagree I get a better appreciation of an opposing view.
One thing that struck me is how few of the columnists in this article cited a comment that made them think differently. Many just used a comment to further their own argument. Disappointing.
29
"...at times in our history, the church has been an extraordinarily important moral voice for progressive causes..."
I'm having a very hard time imagining this to have ever been true. I am not aware of any large scale activity of the church other than silencing victims and attempting to financially cap their own culpability. That organized religion has rallied behind Trump tells everything anybody needs to know about their profound collective hypocrisy. If a church does anything good at all, in my view it's because they're canvassing for members from a captive audience.
"Distrust of organized religion" doesn't even scratch the surface. How about "complete and utter rejection"?
17
@Grunchy The Catholic Church provides more help to poor folks than any other single organization in the world. There is no close second. Due to the many religious who work for small wages they also provide these services more efficiently than any worldwide NGO. These services are provided by some of the most caring and dedicated people in the world whose motivation is to respond to God’s gift of an eternal soul by imitating his Son through self sacrifice for the good of others. Doing this work gives the Church its credibility on “progressive” stances.
12
@Mr. Buck Local, state and federal governments in the U.S, could provide more comprehensive community support if they didn't directly give Catholic Charities 62% of their funding (from tax-paying citizens). Local property tax revenue could supply the balance if churches weren't exempt from paying it.
Internationally, it sounds like the church is still selling indulgences: " religious who work for small wages...gift of an eternal soul".
The hierarchical patriarchic church is not a progressive organization; in fact, it could be argued that its presence has contributed more to regressing and to impoverishing the very "folk" it claims to be helping.
5
@Grunchy The only good thing organized religion ever did was provide some positive community outreach. Any group that can organize itself to assist its congregation in real and measurable ways can take some thanks for that.
I'm surprised Ms. Boylan did not mention the idea of social evolution in her response. Similar to the gay right movement, trans rights are also part of an evolution toward equal rights.
It's quite likely the number of people caught in the "wrong body" has not changed at all -- more likely, they were there all along beside the reader, but society had not advanced enough for them to be in the open.
4
I met Mario Martino back in the 1980s, when I was a student; he was brave enough to host a meeting in his own home. Then, of course, there is Jan Morris, one of the greatest living writers.
1
@Jules I don't understand why anyone would need to think they are caught in "the wrong body," except that social norms have made them feel that way. I suspect it arises more from a boy demeaned as a "sissy" when behaving naturally, or a girl being called a "tomboy" if she doesn't prefer "girly" things. In my view whatever a boy does is masculine and whatever a girl does is feminine. Why is "gender-change" surgery necessary for a person to be who he or she is??
3
Response from authors says a lot about their inherent qualities. Many authors step back and think if they made sense. Some like Krugman will never` change. Authors like readers are mostly married to their beliefs and unwilling to listen to others. Take for example about taxes. Obviously, he missed that Singapore provides far better quality of life with 15% taxes. Yet they never give hand outs to its citizens. Something good for Krugman to study.
10
How many nuclear missiles, aircraft carriers, submarines, and land sites does Singapore have? Take out the expense of the greatest military force in the world by far, and sure, taxes could be cut. Try getting a massive cut in the defense budget through a Republican controlled government.
2
@GI - shouldnt Paul Krugman not talk about it? Instead it is al about taxing and taxi endlessly. Businesses pay income tax, matching SS and Medicare, franchise tax, unemployment tax, state and local taxes, etc. Why one has to keep saying businesses should be taxed more?
1
And then there are crossword puzzles in addition to our being asked to comment on comments. How much time do we have? I am convinced that if I read every word every day in our beloved New Times that I would not be able to find time to eat, drink, or fool around. But I will try.
8
I have found some of the comments by readers very interesting and intelligent. Sometimes these comments add to the story more information and insight; issues that the article missed. I find that articles bring up questions that should have been answered in them but luckily are answered by the comments! Kristof always answers his readers which is very nice of him. Krugman covers issues the most completely; I have never finished his articles with a question. I have found the comments sections very helpful in understanding many issues and the points of view of different people.
26
@getGar It would be a great community engagement and outreach to see more Columnists reply as Nick Kristof.
1
The opportunity to write a comment when moved to do so is immensely therapeutic. Reading other comments is Illuminating. Can’t thank you and your readers enough.
32
I love reading comments! The comments on political pieces have helped me come up with my weekly protest sign many times.
13
Have of late aimed to be more disciplined. To read the story thoroughly before opening to the comments. It can be so tempting to approach a given story the other way around. And have come to almost know when certain commenters will chime in, on certain topics and look for them to see how they are probing. Also love sensing how all these voices/comments are presenting from so many distant places, however, seemingly, so far, all from earth.
20
It’s great to know I’m not the only one addicted to the comments. I’ve found myself skipping articles without comments. The sense of community and various perspectives is wonderful. Commenters’ personal stories can be very illuminating. I’m also glad to know that others feel same way about Wapo’s comments. Once in a while they are funny but basically they are horrible. They do shine light on the level of common discourse which can be helpful.
36
I really like the comments section that is supplied after various news and opinion pieces. The range of comments both in thought and geography really help me understand the issue being addressed. At times, additional statistics are included in a comment, a personal experience that enhances the debate or, often my favorite, the comment from someone outside the United States. Those add valuable perspective and I appreciate all the comments. The witty ones help me deal with Trump. Just being part of a conversation where a fair number of the writers feel the same pain I do when thinking of injustices the current administration seems to rejoice in inflicting on children or the elderly or those driven from their country is comforting.
24
I enjoy reading and writing comments to many of the articles. This is one of the many reasons I enjoy reading the New York Times. It is also very informative and interesting. Also, thank you for removing the green check marks from those commenters who were approved first. It makes all those commenting feel special. Thank you.
12
I subscribe to the Times because of the comments. In them I often find some of the best critical thinking- more illuminating than the articles in some cases.
46
My favorite columns are those by Nicholas Kristof. Followed by the conversations between Gail Collins and Bret Stephens. Kristof writes so beautifully and compassionately...and the conversations between Collins and Stephens are light and humorous...I so much agree with Kristof. Collins and Stephens provide a lighter side to what's going on in our country which is a much needed deep breath of air. But Kristof provides the substance.
6
Thanks for writing a column about our comments!
This is almost the only place I express my opinion, because it's moderated, but not too much, most of the people are pretty literate, and there are some great conversations happening.
One criticism is that it's a political echo chamber. I wouldn't go that far, because there is plenty of comments on both sides and the NYT has a habit of "picking" contrarian positions - probably not a bad thing.
This is one of the main reasons I subscribe. It's a good place to vent and also good practice to write thoughtfully on a daily basis and sometimes get feedback.
My father was a letter writer to the local newspaper between about 1965 and 1998. In his later years wrote several letters per day. He would mail each of them in a separate envelope, and then when the paper came out he would clip the letter and sometimes responses to his previous letters, and place them in a scrapbook, which I still have.
I can only imagine how much he would love this forum.
Thanks, NYT, for creating it for us.
55
@O
What a wonderful story about your father's letters to the editor and his practice of archiving those documents.
That's one downside of the Times' commenting system: if a reader's post isn't chosen, they risk losing what they've written--unless they save it elsewhere, which is what I've started doing with my own posts (including this one!).
8
@O
Thank you for sharing about your father - that's lovely. I'm sure he'd be delighted that you're keeping up the tradition.
Cheers,
Ashleigh
1
Thank you NYT for allowing us to comment. I really appreciate the opportunity to share my thoughts with fellow readers across the country and the world on various topics.
The Times' comments are a model for civil discourse and debate online. I especially appreciate the intelligence, passion, humor and wit of my fellow commenters. This creates an engaging online community and an opportunity to learn from one another.
Of course, thanks to the journalists who write on the topics we respond to; it is great to know you read our comments.
34
Point of information. Singapore is an advanced country if there ever was one but has a 14.2 percent ratio of taxes to gdp. For better or worse. Doesn’t take away from the point though.
5
Kara Swisher has gotten a lot of grief in these comments for a small part of what she said, and really in response to Steve from Kingsbury, not her original column. I’ve owned a car for nearly 50 years, but every 7 years, as I prepared to leave for a sabbatical, I jacked both of our cars up on blocks, where they stayed until our return. For a blessed year, we were free of the grinding maintenance, gas fill-ups, cleaning, and inevitable last-minute failures. That’s the point that I think she wished to make, not that everyone everywhere could find liberation now or in the near future.
As for the ubiquitous pickup, Steve and others are right: for those in rural areas, whose jobs involve manual activity, a truck is a necessity. For many, I suppose, Norman, OK (population 110,000) is rural. It seems that every other vehicle here is a truck, and judging from the models on display in dealers’ lots, trucks are a disproportionate segment of the motor pool. But when I pass them on the street, few if any look like they have done any real work since the day they rolled off the assembly line. The owners of 4-door, 4-wheel drive crew cabs whose crews are 5 years old could just as easily transport their young employees in a smaller and more economical vehicle.
32
@Ockham9
I've done an unscientific study (call it careful observation) where I live (rural western Washington) and the drivers of full size pickup trucks are by far the worst, most aggressive, fastest, and most dangerous drivers.
They really stand out, but not in a good way. If I'm doing the speed limit (on cruise control) and I'm being tailgated, the odds are overwhelming that it's a pickup whose driver can't wait for me to pass the car in the right lane. As soon as I am able to move to the right, the truck will come roaring by sucking up gas, spewing carbon into the atmosphere in order to reach the desired 10-15 mph over the perfectly reasonable speed limit.
5
@Ellis6
I recently started working in a rural area, and my experience has been completely different. I've encountered some aggressive pickup truck drivers, but many of the ones I encounter on a daily basis are incredibly cautious, never driving above the speed limit and always signaling before they turn. From what I've seen, rural truck drivers care just as much about their safety as the rest of us.
1
I agree that readers' comments often add perspectives to NY Times columns and I am pleased to know your columnists read and learn from them.
I would like to comment here on David Leonhardt's statements about the grounds for the Articles of Impeachment. I share the House's objection in Article 1 to President Trump's usurpation of the power of appropriation, by attempting to withhold the military aid for Ukraine approved by huge bipartisan majorities in both Houses of Congress and signed into law by President Trump himself. If he had objections or wanted additional preconditions for releasing the aid written into the law, President Trump could have tried to negotiate with Congress to get his terms written into law. Or he could have shown the courage to veto the bill and told Congress and the country the changes he demanded before approving the bill. Of course, he did nothing so straightforward. Rather like a weasel, President Trump signed the appropriation bill into law without charges, and then under a veil of secrecy, impounded the funds until his misdeeds were publicly exposed by the whistleblower's complaint. I also agree with Article 2, Trump has clearly obstructed the congressional investigation. However, I think there should also be an Article 3, pertaining to the withdrawal of US Special Forces troops from NE Syria to clear the way for Turkish genocide against the Kurds. Crimes against Humanity should equal Crimes against the Constitution when considering impeachment.
12
Bennett I had come to believe we had called Trump all the bad names in the English vocabulary, but "weasel " so perfectly describes him and his acts of betrayal.
@MikeMavroidisBennett And, then there are the kids taken out of their parents' arms, sent thousands of miles away with no tracking system that might aid in returning them to their families. I read this week that we have incarcerated more than 100,000 children under this Administration's determined and evil policy intended to do exactly what it has done: traumatize children, punish their parents and destroy our reputation among nations of the world as a haven for the poor, tired, masses yearning to breathe free.
I’m “Jason from Seattle” that Dr Krugman cited. I admire the fact that he referenced my dissenting comment.
But I believe he replied with a common liberal misunderstanding of incentives. I stated quite plainly that higher taxes would influence the behavior of my company - and his response was that taxes as a percentage of US GDP are low?
Just to add a bit more context - I moved my company from New York State to Seattle in 2014 specifically because I wanted to avoid an 8.22% NYS state income tax (my business is an S Corp). My point was simply that I will find any way to avoid additional “soaking”.
But again, I genuinely admire the fact that Dr Krugman cited my comment, which was discordant from most. Our current political environment sure could use a bit more healthy and measured debate.
If Dr Krugman ever wants to continue our discussion I would be delighted to do so. In fact - I would be honored to treat him to lunch at a restaurant of his choosing, but only if Bret Stephens Is there to moderate.
Warmest Regards,
“Jason from Seattle”
33
@Jason I would prefer to have lunch with an economist who actually has a grasp on what is truly occurring in the US economy. Krugman has been proven to be wrong on too many occasions.
4
@Donald
Everyone is wrong sometimes, but he's certainly not nearly as wrong as the trickle-down, "tax cuts will pay for themselves" crowd. That's pure snake oil.
65
@Jason
My opinion is that we have a nation where individual states compete against each other in a very destructive way. Businesses move to low tax areas, possibly with 'incentives,' and then work the system to pay no local taxes, all of which sucks the lifeblood out of the locality.
That leaves us with pockets of horrible poverty and pockets of obscene wealth. It's not good for a nation to have high levels of inequality.
I'm sure Dr. Krugman will tell you exactly the same thing at lunch.
5
It seems that Kara Swisher has not actually gotten the message. Also, many rural people I know still have landlines since cell service isn't great out there, so another failure to grasp her own urban privilege.
25
@reader Choosing to live in an urban area is not privilege; it's an option available to anyone, and vice versa.
1
You don’t recognize rural privilege?
1
@shamtha Choosing to live in an urban area is only an option if you can get a decent job and affordable housing. Unless you have independent means.
2
I take issue with Nicholas Kristoff saying Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was an evangelical Christian. While the definition of “evangelical” ought to mean one who spreads the gospel of Jesus, it has come today to imply a conservative, fundamentalist Christian.
I don’t wish to label Dr. King’s theological beliefs, but I do not believe he would in any way identify his faith as similar to 2019 Christian evangelicalism. Yes, King spread the gospel - but his definition of “gospel” was the good news of Jesus’s actual teachings to love, show compassion and radically include all people - especially the most marginalized. To imply Dr. King was in any way an evangelical similar to those of today does him, and history, a great injustice.
31
I would like to comment on your comments about us commenting. :)
When I write a comment, I like to give my impressions on the article but also:
1) Bring my local perspective by telling what is going on in my city and state that might pertain to the issue.
2) Since current events don't exist in a vacuum, I want to bring a historical perspective to the subject. You may think, for example, that the street conversation among the citizens of 5th century BC Athens have no relevance to our lives - but you'd be wrong.
3) I try to comment on important things that may have been overlooked. For example, it does no good to say what we should do about global warming if the will of the people who want to fix it are thwarted by our undemocratic election system. This needs to be recognized.
Hats off to the Times and the many fine commenters. I'm proud to be a part of this community.
28
@Thucydides
Since the word 'democracy' comes from the Greek for 'common people' and 'strength' I would certainly hope that conversations that took place during that particular period have relevance to the structure of our lives now.
I find our biggest problem to be that too many of our citizens believe that our system of laws and justice are based, in total, on the bible.
10
Dear Kara Swisher: I still have a land-line. No cell service in my area. And to the wags who know about Mark Twain's alleged comment about Cincinnati, it's only partly true.
15
I often find myself reading the comments first, then I go back to the actual article.
Backwards? Perhaps, but I love the depth, the many perspectives, the richness of experiences in the lives of so many Times readers.
And when I am having a particularly sordid day filled with dark news, I find the top comments are usually in line with how I feel that very day, which makes me realize that I am not alone in the world.
Sanity loves company!
Bravo readers and bravo NYT for giving us a forum.
61
I've read NYTimes comments for many years and have seldom had the sense (or proof via a counter comment) that the authors read them. I can understand why the would not, with the press of deadlines. And some writers are unintentionally cartoon characters who attract enormous amounts of negative reaction that would be painful and probably futile to read, such as David Brooks.
I do think it was better when comments on comments were not allowed.
6
@Dennis Driscoll
"comments on comments" allow an important furtherance of discourse and also provide a way
to add to and / or correct information presented
in the original comment. (Lacking an edit feature,
sometimes the corrections are made by the original commenter).
This forum would be greatly diminished without such allowance.
Regarding the comment about why guns aren't allowed in the Supreme Court... I assume the point was something along the lines of "See? Gun free zones are safer!" Which is true... if the zones are *actually* gun free (i.e. if you use metal detectors, guards, etc to prevent firearms from getting in). That's what the Supreme Court does. But just slapping a big "no guns" sticker on a door doesn't get the job done. Mass shooters won't care, and everyone else will be unarmed. So either enforce the no-gun policy or don't have one.
5
@KrisK I interpreted her comment to mean, you make us live in the dangerous world, but you exempt yourselves from it. Sort of like the idea that we should pass legislation that no one in Congress gets health insurance, so they would have a taste of what it means to try and buy it on the "open" market and might then pass some common sense health care legislation.
29
I confess I've told more than one person this year that I might be addicted to the NYT comments section. When discussing things I've read, I frequently bring up points mentioned in the comments as often as I do content from the article itself. I feel thankful for certain moments of realization, which tend to come after I've clicked on an article feeling one way about a topic, finished it with a freshly altered perspective, and then having that fresh perspective turned upside down after a trip through the comments. The NYT catches flak from conservatives for being too liberal, but I actually believe the writing and comments here have given me more moderate views on certain issues.
Thank you all for your thoughtful feedback, even if I don't always agree.
45
I’d be interested to learn how your columnists are selected. How does the paper decide whose opinions deserve to get such a wide readership?
While I’m on the topic, I’d love to see the NYTimes add a scientist an opinion columnist. Science and technology are moving at a breathtaking clip, producing moral and ethical quandaries that concern all of us, not just the scientific community. In addition, science and scientific thinking are under now attack from the Trump administration, so I think that it is more important than ever for the public to hear a scientific counterpoint.
41
@E
Hopefully, a scientist who can explain science to a broad swath of readers. And make it fascinating to interest, not bore, the readers. Someone like Neil deGrasse Tyson would be terrific!
10
@E My father and I, lifetime Times readers (he is in his mid-90s), just last night were saying that we would prefer that The Times get rid of all its columnists and instead feature more Op-Ed articles. Most newspaper columnists (I was one decades ago, for the Hollywood [Florida] Sun-Tattler) run out of gas fairly quickly and repeat themselves endlessly.
NYT, please seek an ecological economics columnist to add to the progressive discussion in this esteemed paper. It is long overdue. Herman Daly, former World bank economist and proponent of steady state economics, would provide a good counterpoint to neo classical economics often assumed as the only economics in this paper-- and yet it is the economics that is responsible for environmental and middle-class destruction. It is long past time we try to move the conversation forward about how we live on this planet in a full world with too many humans and constrained resources. The economics they got us here will not be the economics that sustain us.
21
I love reading the comments, knowing full well that it is in the hands of some of the best and nuanced moderators on the planet. Even if one disagrees with the authors or opinion writers, our thoughts are given due diligence.
Kudos and Bravo.
16
Thank you for this feature. It would be fun to see it regularly! As other commenters have mentioned, it would be great if the NYTimes included a columnist with perspectives from the middle of the country. I'd love to see a regular column by commenter Bruce Rosenblitt of Kansas City especially. Hope you may consider!
12
Thank you, NYT, for giving me an outlet for my frustrations that isn't met with bullying or obscenities. When I hear my suggestions echoed by politicians (e.g. Pelosi's decision to hold onto the impeachment articles), I flattered myself that maybe she read my comment or someone told her about it. I realize that there is almost no chance that that has occurred, but it does give me the feeling that I'm not just shouting into the wind. Thank you also to all the contributors. Your thoughtful comments have renewed my faith in the possibility of intelligent discussion.
56
Yep. I think I remember when you made that suggestion to Pelosi. Such a move had never occurred to me. So, maybe I heard it from you first. Your comment may have had no effect but who knows? I am glad you have this place to voice your ideas.
3
Many of the regular commenters in the NY Times are my gurus! It’s a wonderful, intelligent, caring group of readers who have a great deal to say. Sometimes I have to confess to a bit of envy as there are so many writers who know more than I do and are able to express themselves so beautifully. I try not to compare and despair. It’s nice to have so many people to emulate.
Thank you all you commenters. I’m SURE we’ll have more wisdom to share in 2020!
67
@Kathryn
You did a nice job with that comment! No need to despair at all!
5
I love reading the comments. I like to read the comments on the Fox News website as well. The contrast is stunning. Makes me confident that I’m on the right side of history.
57
@Kurt - I agree the most intelligent, articulate comments are right here in the NYTimes. But they do tend towards a liberal bent, and I don't want to be lulled into believing everyone thinks like me. So I also read Yahoo News comments to find out what the "other side" thinks. Unmoderated comment sections can be vulgar and ugly, still it seems worthwhile to subject one's opinions to oppositional thinking, and be forewarned of right-wing positions on 2020 issues and candidates.
21
@Kurt
I also used to "enjoy" reading the comments on FoxNews, feeling like I needed to educate myself about how the "other side" thinks, and, like you, feeling that history would vindicate our side.
However, I can't bear reading them anymore. Their constant stream of stupidity, hypocrisy, disdain, and outright hatred got too depressing (and frightening) for me to bear.
3
@Kurt
It's not surprising that the Fox News commenters are, shall we say, less...thoughtful. But what I found truly shocking was how many bombastic, cliched and downright moronic comments are in the Wall Street Journal. When I got my subscription to the Journal I expected the comments to be the conservative opposite of the NYT's relatively intelligent comments. I was wrong.
3
While I certainly don’t like the cultural signaling the Texas driver gave, I also think Kara Swisher’s response came off as very out-of-touch coastal “elite” in nature. Reading the subtext of the Texas commenter, I think he’s pointing out that there are forms of work and ways of life where giving up cars is unrealistic; we can’t all be journalists in a coastal city. As someone who left a similar region (Oklahoma) to escape the ignorance and get a decent college education, I still appreciate the difficulties and different circumstances that face rural areas and Midwest urban planning. I’d think journalism school would teach you to look behind the face-value of words, even if the words themselves are a childish declaration of resistance; if you’re so passionate about these issues, you’d have read that and (in addition to scoffing, bc i would too tbh) also realized there’s another story to be told or view to be understood. Then you could have though about writing how environmental policy w.r.t. transportation is being implemented in areas of large urban sprawl. Maybe upped the sophistication of policy in your writing. Additionally public transportation (besides buses) can be very expensive, and many pre-existing city structures are not very friendly to it either. When these are the exact regions in economic decline (except Texas, but there’s the large distance between towns/suburbs issue) superimposing better transportation infrastructure becomes that much more of a mountain
21
@Grant W.
I gotta go out back and find my butter churn, the Pop-Tarts are just about ready to pop out of the toaster oven.
8
@Blank If I lived in a rural area, I would definitely own a horse. I have vision problems. Once it knows the routine, a horse can be a self-driving vehicle.
16
@Lawyermom
Plus horses eat oats and snack on apples, no need for gas.
1
I wish Nicholas Kristof had explained in his comment about the decline of Christianity why he thinks that it is so important that social change comes out of Christian churches. Otherwise, I don't understand why he sees this as such a loss. Pagans and atheists still volunteer in their communities, and unlike some church groups, they don't tie their aid to religious participation.
27
@fireweed, I'm not sneering at religious groups. I just asked why he preferred them.
@Caroline You know, I sneered at organized religious groups until I had to recruit for foster homes for very challenging children---the ones who could not be maintained in regular foster homes. I must have given 100 speeches to groups big and small. By far the largest number of responses and follow through came from churches and folks who felt "called" to work with children. There was something about church members, whether Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Quakers and non-denominational, that responded to these kids when non-church members did not.
9
I enjoy reading the comments and also enjoy writing my own. At times, I wish the character limit were above 1500, but as someone who writes for a living (nothing interesting, I'm in corporate communications), I enjoy the challenge of having to keep a thought, particularly a complex one, within 1500 characters. I think it makes me a better writer.
35
@617to416: I agree—economy of words seems to win the day.
I try to keep my comments short because those are usually my favorites.
As a professional copyeditor and proofreader, I have justvtwo suggestions for NYT commentators.
First, don’t be so hung up on “who” and “whom.” As HL Mencken wrote: “He always said ‘whom,’ for he had been to night school.”
Second, take 30 seconds to proofread your comment before hitting submit. It can’t hurt.
3
It often feels like the Times opinion pages are not meant to inform but to incite. You regularly have centrists attacking progressives, feminists attacking men, urbans attacking rurals, the status quo attacking bold new ideas. And we never hear the other side of the debate.
You have Republicans and centrist Democrats on staff, but not a single true progressive to explain and defend those positions, despite the significant number of your readers who fall into that camp.
You bombard us with feminist/Women's Studies pieces, some pretty brutal toward men, but never an examination or critique of whether any of it makes sense and/or crosses the line.
Your writers are all in the NY/Washington/Ivy League bubble and therefore only reflect the thoughts and feelings of the cocktail party circuit. We don't regularly hear unique voices from the South or the middle of the country on these pages.
In other words, for all of your self-congratulations about "diversity", there's very little diversity of thought allowed. There are viewpoints that will be heard here, ad infinitum, and those that definitely won't - not based on whether those viewpoints deserve to be argued, but whether you want anyone questioning your status quo.
Open up your minds and your op-ed pages to points of view that reflect all of America and not just those in your bubble. I don't want to keep reading small variations of the same thesis over and over again. I don't learn much here anymore.
65
@J.C. It would be interesting to read something from a Bernie supporter on Medicare for all which seems far fetched but I'd really like (love) to read the nuts and bolts of it; same with Warren. Right now, I absolutely have no idea who (Democrat) I will vote for. No one really explains the nuts and bolts of it. It seems to be 'for show'. The billionaires seem to be seasoned, reasonable gentlemen. But I like Warren's fight for consumers among other things. I like Yang and believe he and Mayor Pete are awesomely brilliant. I waffle with Joe. Enough. Thanks.
9
@J.C.
How many regular op-ed contributors would you like the Times to hire? 250?
They have conservatives, and they have liberals. It's a decent spread. The conservatives are quite the champions of the common man...David Brooks travels extensively across the country trying to figure out what people want. He's written some pretty pointed articles about how 'identity politics' is damaging us--perhaps you missed those. Ross Douthat certainly represents those for whom religion is deeply important.
The Times has guest columnists often, some so extreme I despair that the Times prints some of it. But, they're committed to presenting the full range of thought and I think they do a good job.
I don't really know what you want. If you want them to be more like Breitbart, that's never, ever, ever going to happen.
5
@J.C. "Attacking" is pretty subjective. I read the op-ed columns thoroughly and find I would very rarely describe any of them in that way.
2
There were many memorable columns far too numerous to mention.
Sometimes I learn more from the critical thinking readers than the essay. Certainly the comments help me understand the topic better with such varied insights from around the country and world.
Thank you NYT , the columnists and op-ed writers for offering the comments . This alone makes my subscription fee a tremendous value !
36
One major issue I have with your letter sections is that it seems haphazard which articles are open to comment. And I read articles non-linearly, meaning that when I do have something pertinent to add to the discussion the window has inevitably closed for response. You should have some sort of reputation index that allows verified posters to comment on any article, at any time. That said, the overall quality of readers' comments is exceptionally high for the Internet.
90
@Damon Arvid The quality might seem high compared to the Yahoo circus but it is low compared to the European press, specially French ,in Le Monde or Liberation.
@Damon Arvid I've noticed this, too. Some articles invite no comments. Others invite comments but are quickly closed (and I have my own jaded opinion about the reason for this), and others, which seem to spark a lot of interest and varying points of view leave their comments section open for a couple of days. I love the nyt comment section. But...the nyt is a business and the comments are a part of their business plan.
1
@Damon Arvid
Yeah, many editorials whether they be by Guest writers or in some way seem controversial to me, are never open to comment except by replying with letters to the editor.
1
Congratulations on the best comments section of any newspaper - the cost of moderating is worth it. I often learn as much from the comments as I do from the articles.
179
@fflyer
Would like to give a shout-out to the nameless workers tasked with the thankless job of moderating comments !
NYT, maybe you could do an article on them ? Thanks !
I love the Comments and this is how I read them: I choose All and switch "Sort by: Oldest". I like to read the earliest responses, will read hundreds, and try to avoid focusing on "Times Picks". Thanks for an enriched 2019, fellow Commenters. It is a great part of digital media. I also learn a great deal by being a part of the Yahoo "reactions" community. It is a zoo and I feel more in touch with the rest of the US, which is essential in understanding next year's Presidential Election.
24
@Jenny
I also choose All and switch "Sort by: Oldest".
It makes more sense to me than sorting by newest.
4
@Amoret I sort by "Reader Picks"-- I hadn't thought of doing all, then "Oldest". Thank you!
I especially appreciate how comments are moderated. It’s as if we’re on equal footing with your writers, elevating our commentary to something higher than just hitting the send button to vent our frustrations.
Thanks for this opportunity, much appreciated.
28
The conversational engagement in the NYT Comments section is BRILLIANT and important today more than ever. Being able to hear the voices of so many people, the ability to reply (be in dialogue) with them, is a gift.
It is my sincere hope that being in dialogue may save us. Thank you, New York Times!
59
@Audrey Compared to the comment section in the French press, in Le Monde or Liberation, the sense of dialogue is minimal in the NYT, as the threads of comments are short .
1
@JPH Very true, JPH! However, right now we two have a thread and that's a great service, if more of us will use it to be in dialogue. I appreciate your reply, and the effort others may make to keep the ball in the air!
1
My first time through college (1965-1969) was more of a social education than an academic education. After three years of participating in the NYT reader comment section, I see that what I write is my way of processing the information and ideas that are presented by your staff. Plus, I read dozens of reader comments per article per day, where I find the essence of point and counterpoint. I consider myself a student at heart who has found a way to embrace the richness of the learning process.
39
Re landlines. I live just outside Fairbanks. While I am now landline-free, I still have very limited cell phone access. And as recently as 10 years ago (perhaps even more recently) I saw ads up here for internet access from companies that used as their main selling point "Faster than dial-up!"
I am as liberal as they come and am deeply annoyed at the condescension shown to people who live in rural areas.
63
@dtm I, as well, was annoyed at the 'tone' of the opinion writers response. It was almost as if you could hear her speaking words, and those words would have sounded with an 'edge'.
Her POV seemed more important than the commenters POV. My way, or the highway (with or without a truck as a vehicle).
I have a landline living in an urban location. I love it. It is not my main mode of verbal communication. It's main purpose these days is to serve as a backup form of communication and to be a giveaway phone # when I really don't want to give out my cell number and be bothered by companies or individuals. This way my cell becomes more of a private number.
The ringer is in perpetual off. Please leave a message!
17
@dtm
I agree, and let's note that landlines become a lifesaver, sometimes literally, in disasters that cause electric power to go out for a long time.
The landline phone system does not depend on the electric-power system. Cellphone chargers do. Moreover, cellphone communications are especially prone to failure during the crucial early stages of disasters, when many people call at the same time to check on other people's safety.
We've got cellphones and broadband Internet, but we're also keeping our landline.
10
@Stinger I, too, was annoyed at the condescension. I have a landline--with an actual corded phone (take that!)--sitting on my desk in front of my desktop computer. I will keep my landline until they pry it from my cold dead hands so that no one has to pry anything from my husband's cold dead hands, if 911 can't trace my cell phone in the middle of the night. Emergency services still can't do that accurately & consistently, and if I can't hold onto my cell because I have to keep him from falling off the bed while he's having seizures from his blood sugar having bottomed out, you can bet I will have made the call on a landline they can trace and determine our location.
11
Question for Dr. Krugman's reader:
Like most businessmen you seem to have a libertarian worldview. Please show me an example of a modern country anywhere on the planet that has created broad prosperity for it's citizens with a libertarian economic system. The planet is a laboratory of social. political and economic experiments. If libertarian economics produced broad prosperity, it would be flourishing in many places. One example of libertarian economics that comes to mind was the American Gilded Age of robber barons in the late 1800's. I don't think we want to try that again.
33
@Craig Willison
Hong Kong.
Not that libertarian policies are responsible for their economic success, but it's pretty much as close as you can get to a real life country with zero regulations and small government.
4
@Viv
Hong Kong is not a country, it is a very large city on a very small island.
There are many local and national regulatory regimes that control most every aspect of living and working and doing business in and with Hong Kong and these regulations are far more onerous and complicated for foreigners to navigate than for mainland Chinese or for native residents.
12
@Blank
For all intents and purposes, Hong Kong under British rule was an independent country. It was that laissez-faire attitude that made it the wealth capital (and inequality capital) that it is today.
Of course now that it's under Chinese control, it will face different an entirely different corrupt regime where official government regulations are not enforced. The 'communist' Chinese are draconian insofar as their power structure and money is not threatened.
The strength of the government is not to ensure that all their citizens have access to basic sanitation, healthcare, education and economic opportunity - as the many billions of Chinese people in poverty can tell you.
If you want additional examples that are independent countries, try Monaco, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, etc. All have very very lax regulations and practically no social safety net beyond what's mandated by EU regulations. There's a reason these countries gained wealth and reputation as money laundering capitals and places where shady business people could legitimize themselves.
7
In my view the comments section, international coverage and investigative reporting is what makes NYT superior to all Australian newspapers. I like reading the comments to see how other people respond to an issue, but also to see how different people can read the same thing and interpret it completely differently. It’s always interesting to see what people pick up on and what they ignore. The comments section definitely enriches the articles. It is like being part of a global community. I also like writing comments, as it gives me a chance to test my ideas and see how others respond to them (or not), although some of my views do reflect cultural differences. For instance, Australians will never understand the problem with universal healthcare, gun regulation and abortion is not a big issue here (although there are restrictions).
50
@Kay
Don’t forget the NYT’s resources are VAST.
Kara Swisher, based on your response to Steve Chaney, I would say you did not really get the message. In your original article you say:
"It’s obviously an easier decision if you live near a major metropolitan area, like I do, where the alternatives — cars and then car pools and then bikes and now scooters — are myriad."
For people who don't live in major metro areas, especially rural areas, it's not a matter of how easy or difficult the decision is, it's whether it is an option or not. It's not all about stubbornness, it's also about practicality which a "bajillion" readers felt wasn't acknowledged.
The idea of not owning a car doesn't seem to acknowledge that people use vehicles for more than driving to work and shuttling kids around. People -owning- an electric vehicle is more practical than summoning a shared car to drive 10 miles from its base in town to your house and then drive you 10 miles to town and back home and then to its base again. That wastes wear and tear on the car. Same with a pickup truck to haul things and pull trailers.
As I sit here looking at a construction site and a freeway, I'm thinking people who don't work in offices want their lifestyle acknowledged too.
44
@Amy K You are so right and you saved me writing my own comment which would not have been as good as yours. . Kara did NOT get it when she insulted Steve "Keep all your gasoline-guzzling and climate-killing motor vehicles manned by humans."
PS The other columnists did much better.
3
I have to admit these days I enjoy the comments more than the original articles. Often I skip right through the article and go right to comment area. I feel more and more many opinion writers here are out of touch of reality and I can learn a lot more from comments.
46
@Amy Lee I disagree. Most of the oped writers are very much in touch with reality. It may not be your reality but skipping through the original article just to find your like minded commenters is doing a disservice both to the opinion writer and to yourself.
1
Kara Swisher, in trying to make a point about the inevitability of some kind of progress, says "Remember land lines?" and in so doing, doubles down on the rural/urban divide she was attempting to clarify in the first place. Some of us STILL HAVE LAND LINES, Kara! Maybe nobody in the city still does, but we do. I am not even in that remote of a place but cell service is spotty and unreliable. Will I one day be able to get rid of the darn thing? Well, I sure hope so and I'm sure a robot electric car will follow shortly thereafter.
51
@J "Some" is doing some heavy lifting here in your criticism of Swisher. As she noted in her column and her response, change is gonna come for the majority at some point. That's a far cry from the totality.
3
@JBC
There is no guarantee that said 'change for the majority' is in the direction of Higher Tech. We have plenty of information on what a single CME (Coronal Mass Ejection) might do to our electric grid, and what that would mean in particular for highly urbanized environments. (Descent into total chaos within 72 hours is the most common prediction . . . )
3
@JBC The reason this was worth pointing out is that she put land lines in the past tense as somethiing Steve and all the other people who were complaining about her original point would immediately recognize and relate to: "much as you switched from land lines...". But instead it actually reinforced their complaint that the urban elite think the entire country can live as they do and as they want others to live. After I commented, I looked this up and according to a government 2017 survey, a bare 51% majority of the country was cell phone only. This is remarkably similar to the bare majority that liberalism claims gives it the mandate for all kinds of political reforms and the reason I flagged Ms. Swisher on this fairly minor detail is because it seems telling of the failure of some elite pundits to grasp that their own surroundings do not reflect the state of the entire huge diverse country. Change is slower than is often argued and people need to realize that writing in this way sends out a message that people in the flyover places don't matter: how you live doesn't matter, what you want doesn't matter. It's subtle but it contributes to the notion that you have a shelter from these uncaring progressive forces in Republican protectors (which is not true). If Ms. Swisher and other future oriented people want to convince the public of the need to make sacrifices in lifestyle, they ought to start with a better understanding of the way people across the country actually live.
1
Random thoughts on NYT, Comments, and Articles I value:
About a year ago, NYT noted an under representation in gender comments.
They were supposed to get a little heft.
Did it work?
The Morning Call in Allentown used to use New Years Day (2 pages print) to note names of ALL letter writers. I enjoyed it annually. This column giving a nod to writers, et al is a nice touch to end this year for readers.
I have been moved to write comments on articles from Butterflies, to Wegmans, the Pope, and more. My comments were graciously accepted. Thank you.
I send texts about Articles and Comments at NYT to my far flung family all year...often. My Poet Laureate niece gets Poetry links from your amazing poems.
Most memorable article for me is still in my texts to a Cousin in GA. Here is my text to her...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/08/nyregion/auschwitz-love-story.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage
Read this together with Tony when you both have the time to read at leisure.
From the New York Times today.
It is about love that endures...and inspires.
The Comments are also worthwhile.
I was sleepy today and opened my eyes at 2:01pm. 😳
After getting coffee, I read the article.
It made for a complete day for me.
Love,
Her response later that day is a treasure to my heart.
And will remain there.
And as my final comment of 2019, let me wish all of you writers, readers, commenters and everyone...
Have a Worthwhile and Happy 2020!
18
By liberal standards, I am a heathen who lives in flyover country. As a result, per the comment on mud encrusted trucks, walk a mile in my moccasins and you'll see something different than what one sees from an upper west side high rise.
The discussion by Professor Krugman meets this criterion. I sign the fronts of checks as a business owner (my preference is not to do the accounting and banking electronically). The increases in insurance premiums and all manner of taxation is actually a major unknown for people like me and not to someone who doesn't have to do cover these costs out of sales income.
A semantic issue. In chemistry "cis" means bonds on the same side of an axis and "trans" means bonds on the opposite side of an axis. When I hear these terms used in the context noted in this essay, I wonder how this confusion in terminology occurred.
16
@dmanuta
It comes from the Latin root and, yes, is used in chemistry.
A term used by some to describe people who are not transgender. "Cis-" is a Latin prefix meaning "on the same side as," and is therefore an antonym of "trans-," , meaning "across from" or "on the other side of".
So basically transgender is identifying as across from (opposite) the sex assigned at birth. People who are cisgender have their gender identity on the same side as the sex they were assigned at birth.
Apparently the first use of trans/cis along with gender was an old Usenet post. Usenet pre-dates the "web" or what we more commonly refer to as "the internet" today.
9
@dmanuta
Why are you a heathen? I thought the heathens were the godless coastal elites.
2
The Times has done an excellent job in the area of electronic, both online and streaming services. I awake every weekday morning to the voice of Michael Barbaro and the Daily. Last time I checked he had over five million subscribers. I have streamed "The Fourth Estate" many times to remember the early days of President Trump's toxic effect on the people's right to know. Now I have added the Weekly to my must-see TV. Please expand this type of reporting. I would add that every time there is an event, such the situation in Syria or Iran, run a sidebar of the previous actions or pre-election comments of Trump that caused or exacerbated the situatiion. Please remember that many readers do not get their news from social media and that many other news outlets and influential individuals also read the comments.
11
Everyone should keep writing comments, I read them. Learned a lot from them - somethings I didn't want to know but a lot of them improve my view of an issue. Also all the commentators help us readers to see how other areas of the world see us. Keep up the good work commentators.
45
@Jena I read the articles mainly for the comments. So many people are smart, eloquent and at times pretty darn funny. It gives me hope that critical thinking is not dead.
Kara Swisher still hasn’t gotten the message. We in rural areas have not switched from land lines because the cell phone service is still so poor. Why did you think we had? Our internet service also comes via landlines , it is called DSL and mine maxes out at 3.0 mpbs. I am not that rural, I live east of I-95 and within 10 miles of the Atlantic Ocean. All columnists think everyone is just them, and that is the real problem.
87
@Richard
Swisher comes from the TechCrunch school of tech journalism, where the personalities involved in tech are more important than the tech itself, or its implications. Literally all of her early career was devoted to covering Silicon Valley inhabitants, with the monumental changes they were creating relegated to a facile afterthought.
I was hoping that David Pogue would be replaced with a real-life technologist when he left a few years ago, but alas it was not to be.
32
@Richard blame your elected officials for not setting up a modern internet service in rural and semi rural areas. Tech companies need to be incentivized and forced if necessary to connect all of America, not just the urban areas. But it is also true that those seeking to live off in more rural areas will have to deal with less connectivity. You may not like that everyone else assumes connectivity but that's the way it is. If you don't have it - you made the choice to live in an area that is not yet connected as well as it should be. Life is a trade off - Kara Swisher's example wasn't the best one but there are other examples that are applicable.
8
I forgot to mention, in my rural area, autonomous cars won’t work anyway. Most of our streets are barely two laned, so they don’t have white lines painted on the sides. So even though I have a semi autonomous Volvo the pilot assist is worthless off the main roads, and there are more of these kinds of roads then main roads in my area. Every one talks of grocery delivery to houses autonomously, but what then? Most people I know that get deliveries need the last hundred feet into the house.
10
We know that Thomas Zimmerman reads his comments. This is because on July 19 he dedicated a complete column to the comments a previous story received. This column was "Donald Trump, and Other Readers, Had a Lot to Say about Friedman’s Column: More than 5,000 Readers, Including the President, Weighed In."
The original column was, “Trump’s Going to Get Re-elected, Isn’t He?” In his follow-up column Mr. Zimmerman quoted a number of the comments to the first column and discussed them. I haven't seen any of the Times columnists do so before or since; it would be fun to see a little more of this.
(I should confess that the reason I remember this column is I was one of the commenters who was quoted; as a compulsive commenter and a great fan of Mr. Zimmerman this was quite an honor.)
25
@Jerry Schulz Nicholas Kristof also reads and responds to comments in real time. He's a gem.
Reading this story, and its inclusion of two pieces concerning trans people, made me dig though the comments on those articles. I'm honestly shocked to see the level of transphobia in those sections, but moreso disappointed in the number of transphobic comments which were elevated to "NYT Picks." Why are we elevating these hateful voices in particular?
9
@Jack It's not necessarily about transphobia. For one thing, the inclusion of two articles about trans-rights illustrates how out of touch the NY Times writers are. 0.6% of the population is trans. The issue of trans-rights is not particularly relevant in most people's lives, issues like the economy and health care are more relevant. Most people have a lot going on and are focused on their jobs and family and don't give a whole lot of thought to trans-rights one way or the other. And yet of 10 comments that NY Times writers read and found interesting throughout 2019, they found two on trans-rights.
What is even more telling based on the comments is a comment on rural transportation. The comments are pointing out that some people live in rural areas and still use landlines. It is telling that the NY Times writers seem to take wifi and fuel efficient sedans for granted.
I think additionally many people are sick of hearing about trans-rights. You can raise people's consciousness to the existence and experience of transpeople without being in their face and over time most people will get it. If you shove it in their face via media, campus protests, and entertainment, they quickly get turned off and become resentful of transpeople. And they rightfully fear they might get fired for using the wrong pronoun. Most people don't hate transpeople, they hate activists.
41
@James It is now "socially/culturally" unacceptable to openly exhibit bias against African-Americans and other "people of color" as it is to imply that women can't "biologically" be scientists, engineers, CEOs, entrepreneurs, etc. (It wasn't unacceptable, in fact it was common, in the '70s when I first started working full-time.) However, it is currently still socially acceptable to make denigrating, if somewhat circumspect, negative comments about transsexuals, in the workplace. I can understand your being "sick of hearing" about trans-rights, but when the level of acceptance of transsexuals reaches the level of acceptance of women & minorities (such as it is), I can see the "activists" you hate backing off.
7
@Kevin H. To far-left liberals it is unacceptable to be openly racist or sexist in the workplace. Most other people just learned that it's a rule not to be openly racist or sexist and to keep your big mouth shut on matters of race and gender. There is still plenty of racism and sexism in the workplace, it is just more subtle and implicit. There are plenty of SJW men who proclaim to be feminists and support women in the workplace, but then marry teachers and nurses.
If implicitly questioning the "biological" qualities of women as engineers was so socially unacceptable, why did so many people take James Damore's side?
I think the concern is that activists might go even further from firing people merely for open explicit bias to firing them for perceived and unintentional bias and offense. I think it is wrong to do so. In particular, it is wrong to fire people for being insufficiently liberal.
Most people presume that in a professional environment that you are expected to treat trans-coworkers with decency and respect. Some employers will fire you for bigotry against trans-coworkers. Most people hold no ill will against transpeople and are too busy with their work day anyways. That is, until they have mandatory diversity training. Then they become resentful.
Is the point of the activism to successfully achieve social justice and equality? Or is it merely to play activist and get a kick out of trying (and failing) to control others?
2
I find it reassuring that the comments of the readers are often every bit as thoughtful, well considered, and well written as the articles themselves (sometimes moreso.) More than once it has been a readers comment, not the article, that has made me (grudgingly) alter my position on an issue, or at least admit my understanding of it was somehow biased.
55
@Peter Yes. Because of the unusually high quality of comments it's often easier to get to the gist of the opinion by reading the comments. More succinct, shorter, and easily digested. Beautifully written opinion pieces are a joy...but sometimes can be a little too beautiful. Sometimes it's just nice to get to the point.
17
A thank you to all the columnists who read our comments. And a thanks that we still have a moderated commentary to post to. Most of us are becoming masters of the less than 1500 character essay, and are grateful for a forum.
I will be reading you all in the year to come; I am glad to know you are reading us.
I only wish that the Times could tag the comments as supportive or contrarian - I know what I think, but I'd like to understand why or how someone else see the world differently, and the contrarian views - other than the picks - can be hard to find.
19
I'm constantly surprised that my political comments seem to be posted quickly though I studied little about government, but my comments about education are rarely posted though I first taught drawing as a TA in 1977 after getting a master's degree and have spent the last 20 years teaching NYC high school students. Thank you for allowing me to display my political foolishness, but I wish you would also allow my voice to be heard when it is something with which I've had much experience. Perhaps the truth about education is something you don't want the readers to come across.
16
@Lawrence Zajac
The political comments from the hoi polloi are the easiest to screen. When you appear to know something, that's when it gets problematic. I made a comment one time about a bit of generally unknown structural engineering information in reply to another commenter's concern about structural movement in high rise buildings. It didn't get posted, and I got annoyed. I submitted a revised comment, this time including my credentials and making the observation that perhaps I knew something about the subject. They then posted the original comment.
I think they quickly scan comments and if they appear strange or off topic they just ditch them without much thought. Keep trying.
5
@Lawrence Zajac
I’ve been posting comments since they were allowed on the NYTimes and have eventually seen every single one of them posted. Sometimes it took a while but they always dropped in.
@Blank
Then you're one of the lucky few. Many commenters complain about comments that haven't been posted--or sometimes even removed.
I believe the comments have to be processed so quickly that many are just not included.
Bravo Editors! Not only for reassuring that "our" comments aren't completely lost in space. But also for printing BOTH types of writer reactions.
Responses like: "Thanks for the great comment, Ms. Doe; it made me think harder/again/more/etc." are wonderful to read.
As are responses like: "Thanks for the comment Mr. Real and Sincere Though Probably Misinformed/Misguided/Etc, but honestly, the facts as I wrote in my piece are still...".
Healthy, spirited discussion and response - and honest argument - is all...well, just...healthy.
18
Pundits should be forced to defend their silly opinions via the comments section, such as Krugman's statements that the economy is great, or his belief that most consumers like their private health insurance.
Maybe that would help the elite escape their privileged bubble and learn about the real world.
13
Off course Bret Stephens chooses a comment that agrees with him and mirrors his own column. So much for letting yourself be enlightened or even surprised by a different perspective.
78
@Mary My thoughts exactly....
5
I notice that David Brooks is missing from this.
What I like most about the comments is this: at their best I learn something new. Sometimes that something is what another person, quite different in outlook from me, feels or thinks about an issue. Other times it's a new way of looking at things.
I do wish that the moderators and the comment posting system would improve. There are some commenters whom I don't see any longer.
31
@hen3ry : some commenters leave for various personal reasons.
I remember a year ago, that comments from the very thoughtful and well-spoken Richard Luettgen disappeared suddenly -- turned out he passed away, very prematurely. He is very much missed IMHO.
Had not somebody mentioned his death, I would today be wondering "whatever happened to that guy"?
The NYT did an interesting piece in 2015 called something like "meet the commenters" -- at that time, they still had "green checks" giving privileges to their favorite (almost all hard-left liberal) commenters! most are still around.
I also strongly suspect a factor is that the NYT greatly strengthened their harsh "pay wall" in the last year. It is much, much harder now to post unless you give in and subscribe. Some commenters cannot afford that very price-y subscription and so dropped out.
2
@hen3ry Thank you for mentioning the the missing commenters. I miss Gemli.
1
@hen3ry I was wondering the same. Some names just disappear. I enjoy reading Red Sox's posts, yet I haven't seen any from him in about a month which is unusual.
2
It is gratifying to think that the writers read and consider the points made in comments. A regular "replies" feature would be of great interest.
18
I wish NYT authors who are concerned about "nullifying identities" would also be concerned about nullifying the identities and experiences of women by forcing labels such as "cisgender" on us whether we like it or not.
26
@Greer Yes! And I look forwards to the future articles - I rue the day - about detransitioners, and the physical assault done unto them by American medicine.
1
@Step Yes, exactly. I feel that reporting on doctors giving double mastectomies to 14 year olds would be a great starting point.
1
Now that I know there is a chance the authors will read it, I no longer have the courage to comment. So. all I can really say is:"No comment!"
6
@D. Ben Moshe
" ... we asked the authors of some of our most-read pieces in 2019 to take a look at the comments on their work ... "
There's no indication that they looked at the comments until buttonholed to do so here. Since I have rarely if ever seen one reply in real time, I'd say you're safe and will continue to be ignored by the authors.
8
@Hildy Johnson
Aren't we really just talking to each other anyway?
I started making comments in earnest in 2016 for obvious reasons. I will not sit quietly while this nation goes down the tubes.
I have seen many responses by Nicholas Kristof that seemed thoughtful and engaged. This is one of the reasons I look for his columns!
Thank you New York Times for acknowledging our comments!
I would like to make two suggestions:
1.Please give us an edit tool, and
2. Allow us to comment on more articles.
Reading the comment section for the New York Times is often akin to reading a well thought out and researched storey in itself. I often learn quite a lot.
I like to read the comments written for the Washington Post for a totally different reason. True, the remarks often devolve into name calling, but some commenters offer a good laugh.
45
@NTS The Post definitely has some great commenters as well. And they have the "Ignore User" button for trolls, since they don't have moderators. Seems to work out well for the most part.
3
@NTS
*story* I meant story, not storey.
Edit button please.
And I noticed that I often use the word often too often.
@NTS Yes, an edit capability would be most helpful.
And kudos to the Times for doing a better job of keeping obvious trolls off the comments pages than the Post does.
2
I do not read the op-eds except for Renkl and perhaps Edsall. I do read the comments. Although many of the commenters are very intelligent, many of their comments are too, too long and some utterly boring, especially when it comes to politics. I just skim/sail by them. There is not much diversity of opinion either with the op-ed writers or the commenters. Echo chamber? Parrots? They whine and whine, complain and complain... Kristoff is a bleeding-heart liberal who is human-centered. I am more interested in animals/wildlife/the environment. I am not interested in identity politics, Putin and Russian Collusion (baloney), the electoral college or Hillary winning by a few million more votes. Over and over, the same old stuff, ad nauseum (yawn).
4
@Carol, I, too, am interested in animals/wildlife/the environment. Thus I'm shocked you aren't interested in politics--US and state policies are the mighty force dictating environmental health and animal welfare. I receive numerous nature magazines and know the depressing reality, but I read the NYT to ascertain what politicians are doing to change (or exacerbate) humans' environmental destruction. Sadly, the party of T Roosevelt, Nixon and the EPA has transitioned into the party of ecocide: climate change denial, reversing auto emission standards, rolling back the migratory bird treaty act, shrinking national parks, downsizing the EPA and attacking scientists, etc. ... all examples of NYT reporting . Thank you, NYT!
My passion for the environment (and middle class, healthcare, education, etc.) has necessitated my ongoing passion for politics and insistence on voting in every election. The NYT and its brilliant commenters help refine my thinking, inform my votes, and battle my " State of the environment " depression through their compassion and humor.
And often, I must confess, I skip to comments to just bask in the global conversation, like I'm sitting at an interesting dinner party. Thank you, all.
16
@Carol
You've written two comments that I've seen so far with the same message.
That's great! Join the club of people who keep saying the same thing over and over and over hoping somebody's paying attention.
I parrot nobody. I say what I believe. I feel good when ten or twenty or one hundred people say the same thing.
The only problem I have with the comments is that the Times should limit the number. 250 tops.
With your interests, you should spend more time in the Science section. Op-Eds are usually current events focused.
1
I loved this article!
8
Kristof responded to readers comments on a regular basis bringing more clarity and expanding his thinking in both depth and breadth. His example should be followed across the written media. Maybe take a few questions on news articles with answers, just limited to avoid it becoming burdensome.
17
Bret Stephens picks a letter that pretty much parrots his original article, lol.
49
A good, and important function, maintaining open commentary, and often informative. Where it falls apart is in the increasing volume of non-columnist, that is, contributed articles, which are often either bald ads for books or just deficient. There is a serious need for editing this stuff, even though I know it’s a thankless and big job, but weak material does reflect on the quality and veracity of the Times. These are also not generally open for comment, either.
In any case, we’d like to see a few more masters of doggerel to keep the mood up!
6
what a great selection! Ok, so i confess that my three favorite columnists are Gail Collins, Jennifer Finney Boylan, and Maureen Dowd (I am just not smart enough for Paul Krugman). Gail is just the person I wanna be hanging with on the Titanic, Maureen keeps it real for me, but Jennifer forces me to think. Her response here is a classic. I find myself teaching more and more trans youth. Yes indeed, many of them are doing that which demands courage & that demands that I open my heart with as much love as I can. Bless you all and keep you!
8
It’s very funny that while most columnists point out a new insight or perspective that they gleaned from the comments, Bret Stephens’s favorite comment basically amounts to “you’re right and I agree with you.”
40
Gail Collins: "I don’t think readers could have even come up with the names of cabinet members during previous administrations. But they’re obsessed with this crowd." Uh, slightly condescending, Gail, not to mention utterly and obviously wrong. You misunderestimate your readers, to quote a former President.
9
Love how Paul Krugman "compliments" a comment that disagrees with his opinion, then labels it "misconceptions" so he can lecture away.
14
@Didi I admire him for telling me I’m “misinformed” about government waste. And he always loves to cite Europe as some model for a better society. Their GDP per capita is 25-30% less than ours precisely because high tax burdens chase away business. I founded a biotech company. I’d never domicile in France in a million years because of the tax and pension obligations. He doesn’t seem to understand this.
3
@Didi
What's wrong with calling a misconception a misconception? Krugman is exactly correct--wealthy countries tax their citizens one way or another. It's hard to do apples to apples except on GDP because some countries may have high VATS, others might have high local taxes, some high federal taxes. Some countries, like Norway, have huge sovereign funds, and that helps pay for stuff.
The bottom line is that if you live in an advanced nation, stuff has to be paid for. Stuff is paid for with taxes.
At least he didn't call the guy an ignorant fool.
2
@Didi
That’s professor behavior :)
Just wanted to point out that this column tells us a great deal about the intellectual quality of the Times' columnists, in general, and the smugness and arrogance of Brett Stephens, in particular.
57
I despise the term cisgender.
Please make it go away.
81
@Norville T. Johnstone, I agree. It’s feels like an attempt to frame a state of being — something that simply exists, passively — as something negative and intentionally intrusive or domineering. Attaching the word “privilege” to it amplifies that offensive framing.
32
@Norville T. Johnstone
Yes, in the same spirit with which I accept others' prerogatives to define themselves using the terms they prefer, just let me choose the terms used to describe me. Drop the cis.
28
@Norville T. Johnstone Id love it if we did away with words that delineate political affiliation: centrist, left, right, progressive, and so forth. I see good candidates crushed by editorial pigeon holing that obscures their ideas, which is what should be front and center, not some pundits categorizing of them in terms of name calling.
2
The incisive and thoughtful reader comments in the NYT are a bonus to a good piece of journalism or commentary. That they are moderated keep me reading. Sites which do not moderate reader comments make me feel like I have just stepped in something squishy and slimy in the dark.
16
Comments are sometimes more important than an article. They give an insight into readership and public thoughts. I only regret that the NYtimes often doesn't accept a Comment and I can't conclude other than the reviewer is injecting his/her own thoughts to the review of the comment. Washington Post allows almost all Comments and I like that. However, it is often preaching to the Choir in Washington Post.
5
@Philip W
Over at WaPo it's occasionally like a verbal pier 6 brawl, but the interchange is usually stimulating and can be great fun. I love being able to have actual conversations with people, whether I agree with them or not.
7
Thoughtful selections and responses by all but the doofus Paul Krugman. He picked one that reflects the opinion of many and then proceeded to trash the commenter. Clearly, he simply used it as another way to convey his idiocy instead of, like the others, giving a thoughtful response. He is the worst!
5
@William i don’t feel trashed. I think he’s dead wrong and I think he selectively uses statistics to preach erroneous things sometimes. For example - he always talks about Europe as a model. And he uses their GDP to tax rate as a statistic. The more important stat is that their GDP is almost a third less than Americans per capita. Why? Because of their tax and regulatory burdens. Business like mine don’t go to Europe even though 40% of our revenue comes from here. We stay in the US precisely for the tax reduction. That was the point of my comment - tax me more and I will leave.
I’m glad he published my comments. I’d bet 70% of Americans would agree with me.
3
@William
It seems to me that Paul Krugman backs up his reply with facts that disprove the commenter's assumptions. Are the facts dubious?
@Longestaffe which “facts” we’re those? This is the issue with Krugman. There usually aren’t many and if there are they are hand selected to validate his point. He cites tax to GDP ratios in “Europe”? Which country? And yet per capita GDP in Europe is 25% lower than the US. Why? Because of high taxes and regulatory burdens on business.
If this is considered “listening” - EG Swisher and Krugman’s snarky dismissals of readers’ comments - it’s no wonder the Times seems so disconnected with anyone outside their progressive readership.
8
Please bring back the public editor!!!
34
@Me
Specifically, Margaret Sullivan.
1
Why do some opinion pieces, usually from "guest" writers, not include a comment section? Do these writers ask for this omission?
41
@Helvius
Good question! I also wonder the same about news stories reported in other sections--some carry comments sections, others don't. I'm puzzled why the Times draws these distinctions.
Can one of the moderators explain? Thanks!
1
I see there is nothing about Maureen Dowd here. She claims to never read any comments. Perhaps if she did, she would realize how dated her snark is. Don't we have enough meanness coming from the prez himself? Is she just one more who cannot stop herself? Why does the Times continue to carry her?
30
@Katy J I like Maureen's snark and so do many other people.
Another thing: sometimes I have an opinion that I’d really like to share. Once in a while my comment becomes a “pick” - then I know that thousands will see it and my comment will be effective. I’d guess that many people only read the “Picks” when it comes to comments.
3
@J.Sutton I have had the good fortune to become a pick a few times. Usually when I have something unique to say rather than just repeating what everyone else is saying.
6
I quite often read the comments before the article and the reason is the same reason I subscribe to the Times and that is; I want to know America.
There's no better way to do that(I think) than reading the comments. I've had some preconceived ideas changed and some reinforced. Yes you are different(to Australians and Australia for instance) and the articles and comments confirm that view but it also confirms that we're all the same, we want similar things, we want our kids to grow up in a peaceful world a clean world, a fair world.
The NYT and it's writers and readers represent to me, all that's good about America.
*Not having to join social media to comment is a blessing too.
21
Said Kara Swisher - "there will come a day when you, too, will use these methods of transportation, much as you switched from land lines to cellphones. Remember land lines? They are next to that manual thresher and butter churn and so much more "
Hey, Kara, I hate to break it to you, but there are plenty of places in this country that cannot get decent cellphone service and rely on landlines.
Your urban privilege is showing - yet again.
66
@JoanP
Elon Musk is testing a $10 billion satellite network that will provide high speed internet to the entire landmass on Earth. It’s still 3-5-10 years away but it would make landlines was useful as buggy whips when it comes online.
3
It's encouraging to know that you're reading our comments. I look forward to reading more columns from all of you, in the future. Along with the requisite cup of coffee, it's how I start my morning every day.
13
I appreciate the writers' and the readers' comments. Agree or not, one can learn many views and information useful to those who want to learn. Thank you!
14
Besides the amazing reporting, I subscribe to the NYTimes vs another news outlet really because of the quality of the Comments.
Sometimes I even "cheat" and read the Comments first (they are that good), and then I read the article.
It enhances the article and gives it perspective.
40
The people around the world who comment on NYT are some of the best writers and most knowledgeable readers on the Internet. It is an oasis of sanity in a mad, mad, mad, mad world. Thanks to all who share their thoughts and temper their feelings.
147
I appreciate all these columnists' replies, but what I'd appreciate even more would be seeing some of these writers' email addresses. Obviously not all reader emails are worthy of a response, but without direct contact information there's more of a sense that we're getting a lecture from above rather than engaging in a conversation.
By contrast, back in the pre-internet days, I'd often write actual letters (the kind that required a stamp) to many of the columnists at various newspapers and magazines. Invariably I'd get a thoughtful and often quite detailed reply, and on a few occasions my point would even be addressed in a subsequent column. I'd like to think that writers would want to encourage this sort of reader interaction, not discourage it by omitting all forms of direct contact information.
That said, I second one of the earlier points that having a moderator is one of the main reasons that the comments I read in the Times are light years above those I read in papers like the Washington Post, or online-only sites like Politico. Don't think I don't appreciate the time and expense that goes into maintaining that quality.
38
Send mail addressed to them to the address of the newspaper. It might take a little longer, but I'm sure the Times and the Post will find a way to get it to the writer.
great feature. could you do it more often maybe?
14
I have commented on quite a few articles from my farmer's perspective and my. I hope. educated perspective. Of my comments about half have been chosen as Times Picks. I feel that those columnists that read the comments are exercising their option to be more understanding of readers and also the subjects they write about.
I also do not claim all-knowing knowledge and appreciate some of the comments I read. I pray that our society is able to differentiate between religious freedom which I am proud to take advantage of as a regular (Episcopal) church attender and religious dictation that seems to come from those like Bill Barr I see as not Christ focused.
I try to read some of the columnists with whom I often disagree to make sure I am not trapped in my own perspective, but there are people who I have given up on because of their prejudice (Marc Thiessen of the Washington Post and several others come to mind.)
A pet peeve of mine is twisting of meaning of words, whether by the right-wing or the left-wing. One of my proudest book purchases was the Oxford English Dictionary - the big version of historical and current importance. I also, as a Spanish speaker, find the problem not limited to our country's common Language - English.
9
Yes, Kara Swisher did get the message. The question is whether our rural brethren have. Ms. Swisher was dismissive of no one in her response to Steve from Texas. She merely pointed out that, like it or not, those who comprise the overwhelming minority of our country’s population are eventually going to have to come up to speed with the rest of us. Rather than continue with the woe-is-me they might do better to either put their energies into insisting, from private companies and their local governments, that they be brought into the modern age, or move closer to more urban and advanced areas. I lived for many years in rural Pennsylvania. Quaint but impractical. I for one am so tired of the “rural argument”, the one put forth to justify political, social and economic regression. Bravo, Ms. Swisher, you do indeed get it!
10
@Caroline Quinn Seriously, that's your answer, that we should all move to the cities? That's the arrogance of the urban dweller in a nutshell: You should move here and be more like us. How are 350 million people all going to fit in the same little pieces of real estate? Where do we grow food? News alert: Some of us don't care to live on top of millions of others in congested confines. The issue here is finding a way to develop sustainable vehicles that meet the varied needs of drivers in a vast and diverse country. I welcome that and hope it happens, though my "insisting" doesn't carry a ton of weight, I fear. Until it does happen, I have to go to work tomorrow and the goods you buy need to get hauled and all of us in those meaningless dirt-covered states you don't like still have to get around.
46
@Caroline Quinn I live on the eastern end of Long Island (aka "the Hamptons"). Cell phone reception is spotty. I have a landline phone, broadband for my business through my computer and my husband and I each have a cell phone.
During Hurricane Sandy, we lost power for five days and had no communication through any source.
The only concern we had was regarding 911 if we needed it. Our neighbor was a ham radio operator and he made the rounds of the neighborhood to let us know that if we needed emergency services, all we had to do was pound on his door and help would be on the way. Yes, ham radio. Ten, Four.
21
@StuAtl
I think the point is, or should be, that it isn't going to just "happen." If it does at all, it will be because the voters of rural America change who they have been voting for over the last 20 years.
It's a real shame that there seems to be so much animosity between the urban and rural cultures of this country. I know that this goes way, way back, but 150 years ago it was geographic. Now it's strictly based on population density.
I believe that one of the points of Kara and her supporters in this argument is that many of the realities of services that exist in rural America - or lack thereof - are a product of the fact that rural states tend to vote in ways that allow large corporations to get away with driving everything they do by profit only.
If you were to poll just about every deeply rural state in the US and ask whether the federal government should enact laws that force corporations to service rural America in the same way they do urban America even though it's not as profitable, I would suggest that most rural voters would be reflexively against it because it smacks of "socialism" and "big government." And yet, free-market capitalism hasn't worked out so well for rural America - or at least that doesn't seem to be the case.
I don't think urban people are suggesting that rural folks move to the cities - I think they might be suggesting that rural people begin to vote in a way that helps them.
4
Nick Kristof continues to promote religion because of what some good religious people have done, even though his audience pointed out that religion also has done an awful lot of harm throughout history and there are also non-religious people doing good.
And yet, he applauds the "conversation." I bet around Christmas 2020 he'll repeat his point of view and we'll repeat ours.
7
@Marc The NYT needs some new op-ed writers. Or is it like the Supreme Court -- a job for life? There is no diversity of opinion -- all of them hate Trump and that's all they write about. I'm not crazy about the guy but I like his position on illegal /legal immigration. The bleeding-heart articles and op-eds on humans including immigrants are disturbing. So are the articles on identity politics. I don't care. I want to see op-eds on animals, wildlife, the environment and human overpopulation.
5
@Carol
There are three regular op-ed writers who are avowed conservatives: David Brooks, Ross Douthat, and Bret Stephens.
They regularly take a beating from the liberal readership.
If not one of them 'likes' Trump, perhaps you should read a few of their columns carefully to understand why.
Not that I put Trump in the same category as, say, Mussolini or Franco, but you'd be hard pressed to find a rational conservative who would 'like' them either.
BTW, Ross Douthat often praises Trump's policies, he just won't praise Trump and for good reason.
5
@Carol
Locking up children in cages is torture. And we already know that wind kills kill birds and cause cancer.
1
Further to my earlier comment, I feel the NYT employs a very talented stable of reporters and editorial contributors. However, their perspective, as I guess we should expect, is largely that of the urban elite. By elite I do not mean wealthy but rather a group of people who tend to believe they know what is best for everyone else. Well and good, but since they tend to be based either in NY or Washington, they do not necessarily understand life in what has been describe as flyover territory. Actually, the term flyover territory is demeaning it that infers it is not important. Why not try to add some qualified writers from these areas to the stable? A different perspective on occasion would be welcome.
27
I completely agree. A little spice from Texas or Kansas might be useful. Reporting from behind enemy lines or even as political refugees. The comments are not that useful: Either a piece is not opened for comments, or not opened in a timely fashion, OR even a very well thought out, civil comment is NOT published. VERY frustrating.
Cheers.
10
@T Smith
I beg to differ. The most insightful coverage of Texas that I have seen has often come from the NYT, sometimes the Washington Post and surprisingly the Wall Street Journal. In the Texas media, which is sometimes excellent, there is a bias toward reporting what those in power want to read. They will always detail to the point of exhaustion every foible and flaw of the Democrats while ignoring the craven corruption of the Republicans. "Can't win" seems to be the only political analysis a candidate like Elizabeth Warren deserves in local media. NYT has reporters from all over the country with all kinds of backgrounds. They are fair, sometimes to a fault, but don't pretend to be stupid.
15
Wrll. I get your point about Texas, but I too think Elizabeth Warren cannot win so on that we will have to agree to disagree!
I like what the Times is did here. I must say, though, that a couple of the replies from your writers reinforce my dislike for them. One in particular. Won’t say who.
Of course, the objective of opinion writing is not to accrue a fan base, but to encourage discussion. Kudos to the Times for providing the opportunity to post comments, and for reading them.
12
I am grateful to Nick Kristof and Paul Krugman for sometimes replying to comments. But what about David Brooks, who I understand never even reads the comments, many of which make valid points against his opinions? I'd like to hear him argue it out rather than just opine.
42
@goodlead - whether or not I agree with Brooks' conclusions, his columns offer interesting cultural observations from a well-read, insightful perspective and great food for thought. Reading the hate spewed in comment sections to his columns makes me sick. I am never so ashamed of fellow commenters. No wonder Brooks doesn't read the comments.
1
How refreshing to read some actual intelligent dialogue between informed readers and thought leaders. Whether I agree or 'like' all of the columnists, they are on an elevated platform. And to hear their reaction is humanizing.
Not sure which angle I appreciated more: the you made me think aspect or the we are not on the same page pushback.
Favorite line: "I have a feeling a lot of people share your misconceptions." - Paul Krugman
10
Mr. Kristof, I'll address you here. Both you and "Jackie in Mo." daughters make the same mistake, or less kindly the same lame argument. Christianity, a worldwide faith is dominated by members of non-American, non-evangelical congregations. A little less national navel gazing, please. Whatever you think of the current Roman Pontiff, he is clearly no Trump lover and has views on some issues a world away from our home-grown loudmouth evangelical political activists/culture warriors.
Equally at odds with those loudmouths are most Eastern Orthodox and mainline Protestants worldwide. However the same right wing culture warriors and headline hunters of our country sure do make for handy cudgels and excuses for persons determined to hate Christianity. Tar the rest of us with that brush?
5
@Unworthy Servant - well, dear sir, "determined to hate" implies that we atheists and monotheism floggers flagrantly deny facts and ignore goods in order to pursue our demonic delusions.
but the core fact we start with is that christianity has devolved into an irrelevancy, which may be why it has been turned to so much political purpose.
whether you feel tarred by a brush may have to do with standing in its way. the pews are empty in europe and canada and emptying rapidly in the USA, which to me is a clear indication that moral force has been replaced by conscription among less literate and more needful peoples, as you highlight as some kind of achievement.
let's stack up the billions and billions of dollars owned by the papal state, and all the corrupt money in its bank, against the mere millions collected by nonprofits and NGOs. let's see which side gets more bang for the buck in truly helping the needy. and no, owning a chain of patron saint hospitals doesn't count -- if you're operating them for a profit.
5
While I love the moderated comments and just sung its praises in another comment below, I do feel the quality of moderation has slipped.
Consider the NY Times picks. In the past (maybe 5-6 years ago, maybe a bit longer), I remember a small selection of only the most thoughtful and articulate comments, representing a range of perspectives, were highlighted.
These days, it seems the picks are often multiple versions of the very same point, some not argued very well. I want well-reasoned alternative or nuanced perspectives, and it seems that quality has been lost somewhat in the NY Times Picks section.
25
@Bill. Especially obvious when the picks happen to be three or four contiguous (timewise) comments. A sure indicator of someone rushed or lazy. Even the ‘most recommended’ ones necessarily are weighted by how early they appear, so do what I do: read lots of them when I have the time.
14
@Bill I agree. Recently I made a comment that, after making, I realized was more narcissism than contribution, was poorly written, and added little to the conversation. It was a "pick."
On many subjects, the views and biases of the editors become clear and thoughtful comments are ignored with mindless cheerleading, like some of my comments, promoted.
7
Concepts like Stephen in Ireland's comment about he/him vs. they really gets me going, too. I think trans folks who do not want to identify as she or he need to invent a new pronoun to describe themselves, rather than borrowing "they," which already is established in the English language as meaning more than one person or life. A trans person is still one body - perhaps containing more multitudes than others - and I wouldn't be surprised if new pronouns would be accepted faster and easier by the general public, if acceptance is what they really want.
13
@Michele Totally agree. Why co-opt a word with another meaning? Create a new word that is unique and mindful. We don't need more linguist confusion.
I'd even take this a step further...when I post something, have a conference call, or introduce myself, I shouldn't have to lead with my preferred pronoun. I am more than a pronoun; so take the time to get to know me and then we can discuss.
3
@Michele-
This argument has some problems. First, there are new pronouns (see: “ze”). Second, thine argument about “they” doesn’t hold water from the perspective of historical linguistics. Please see the history of “you.”
It used to be plural. Unless you’d prefer using “thou?”
The point is language has already changed and is always going to keep changing. I suggest that thou might start there, with that assumption.
5
@Michele, I take issue with the aggressive “cis gender privilege” part of the statement, especially coming from a man (trans or not). Since when does femaleness confer privilege? Quite the opposite is true, actually.
8
Krugman's response is a most succinct summary of the basis of government spending. All students of economics, Keynesian and otherwise, as well as those wishing to understand its relation to US history and politics, might read it with profit.
20
@Alan J. Shaw macro economists can theorize all they want. The fact is that tax and regulatory burden will show away businesses like mine. Read my replies above. I’d love a response from Dr Krugman, who loves to cite Europe as an ideal model, as to why their per capita GDP is 25-30% lower than ours?
Why? Because businesses want to be in places where taxes are low. That’s why they are here in the US. Raise taxes and watch them domicile elsewhere.
1
@Jason
I've no idea what your business is or how many employees you have. I assume you if not they are thriving under Trump's tax cuts and de-regulation. If not, you can always "domicile" elsewhere, e.g., a state with a lower minimum wage or a country with none at all and where you need not provide health coverage for your workers.
1
truly, it *is* refreshing to see that the comments are read, mined for insights, ignored.
is it surprising that not a single comment calls out climate change? well, that would mean that the opinion columnists actually write something about climate change, i believe. we could start the inquiry there.
three facts eventually will bubble up in the conversation. first, bless all their cis and trans gendered selfie souls, but identity politics are utterly nugatory compared to the moral and cultural importance of climate change.
second, the longer we wait to get started seriously dealing with climate change, the greater will be the social dislocations, economic disruptions, lost capital investments, and human whining that will result.
the current UN estimated targets are 8% a year reduction in CO2 emissions over the next decade. next year, it will be 10%, and so on.
third, once we do start reducing our growth in carbon emissions, and actually finally stabilize and begin to reduce them, the climate will keep heating up anyway. there is a momentum to climate change that is not thermostatic -- "OK, hot enough now, we can stop."
against all that, how do the preoccupations of the NY Times columnists with tax shelters and mandates, gun laws and "linguistic erasure" stack up? -- insightful, probing, and above all, ethical? to me they read like a wallpaper of denial, pasted over the windows and doors, simulating a world we hope we never have to leave.
7
@drollere
Good comment about what is deemed news worthy in our times where an avalanche of data, insights, conceptual breakthroughs emerge every day.
However, conformism and group think is a powerful force as well as denial. It is a lot easier to write about cultural war red meat which has little relevance to 90% of the reader day to day lives but engage them emotionally at an identity level.
That does not address systematic issues of market failures, power dynamics with an other representation of people defending established wealth rather than promoting more distributed opportunities for global wellbeing.
While environment and sustainability get a pretty good coverage in the NY times, the struggle to keep on pumping every last drop of oil is not covered as much [keeping it in the ground would be best & we know better].
Liberal ideas of universal income and healthcare for all mostly get the "that not the way America does things" treatment even-though our capitalist system in clearly unsustainable...
The very idea that the news media has a moral imperative to sample the news carefully to create a relevant factual basic for civic discussions I think has been long lost. [With media consolidation, corruption to get market access and corner the competition].
2
Jamelle, Lincoln's victory in the Electoral College clearly highlights the exaggerated size of his victory when received 39% of the popular vote in a four-candidate race. Civil war was probably inevitable and hastened with a candidate 61% of the electorate didn't want. Current proposals to award State electors to the candidate with the highest popular vote will only exacerbate the undemocratic way we elect presidents. The Senate is the body that gives small and large states equal representation, and we won't truly be a republican government until we elect presidents who enjoy the support from the majority of Americans, and have runoffs or ranked voting to ensure the outcome.
8
On horses and auto's!! We moved to West Virginia and brought the economical car with us instead of the German made luxury sedan. Seems like all our neighbors drive trucks. Physically closest neighbor drove a very expensive truck and complained often about truck payments. Then came the great crash that destroyed the truck which was there pride and joy. Elderly farmer sold them a 20 year old Cadillac with forty thousand miles on it for 5K. We lust after that vehicle and tell them often how much we wish we had that car. It's a beauty!!
2
I had read somewhere that David Brooks does not read comments to his NYT op-eds.
It seems that may be true. How about it David....want to let us know how some liberal changed your thinking just a bit?
Ross Douthat?
Oh, and Bret Stephens....quoting someone who agrees with you is sort of cheap. Yes, you learned that some liberals are not 'rich-people-haters.' But, you shouldn't have labored under that delusion to begin with.
197
@CF I suggest you watch Shields and Brooks every Friday on the PBS Newshour. Brooks is an incredibly thoughtful person, and I would say his engaging and long-term political friendship with Mark Shields shows a lot more of his character than you give him credit for.
I do not always agree with him, but more often than not, I think he is the columnist who suffers from most commenters who cannot read nuance.
27
@Bill, I agree with your assessment of Brooks. I don’t agree with him on much, but I enjoy reading his column. He doesn’t scream, you know?
And @CF, I would love to see Russ Douthat complete this exercise!
18
@Bill I agree. Brooks often appears almost 'woo woo Christian love' in print...but if you listen to him on NPR or watch him on PBS Newshour it's clear he's a thoughtful, caring man who wrestles with the issues and changes going on today in our country. I like him more and more.
11
Because of state-by-state winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution. . .
In May 2019, after Hurricane Michael in October 2018, Trump told battleground state Florida voters “You’re getting your money one way or another, and we’re not going to let anybody hold it up.”"I am doing the most allowed by law to support the people of Florida," “We’ve already given you billions of dollars, and there’s a lot more coming.” “The money is coming immediately. No games, no gimmicks. We’re just doing it.”
While Trump claimed that Puerto Rico doesn’t need any more disaster relief. funds
Puerto Ricans, American citizens without any electoral votes, are not receiving aid money and are still struggling to recover from Hurricane Maria in 2017.
14
Jason in Seattle should be writing columns and Paul Krugman should be reading them.
The arrogance of "I have a feeling a lot of people share your misconceptions" is staggering.
12
@George Paul knows everything about everything and he really wants you to know it.
3
@T Smith
Krugman is the one with the Nobel in economics. Why shouldn't he talk with authority about his area of expertise ?
1
@George you made my year George. But give him credit for posting my dissenting comment. There are about 150 others I’ve posted to his articles that weren’t as subtle.
1
I am starting to view the New York Times as a a newspaper second and a forum for reasoned discussion first. Well done NYT!
36
So, why doesn't Bruce Rozenblit have his own column? He's better than some of your regular columnists.
47
The interests of battleground states shape innumerable government policies, including, for example, steel quotas imposed by the free-trade president, George W. Bush, and the Trump steel and aluminum tariffs now, from the free-trade party.
Electoral math drives protectionist trade policies to favor parochial interests in battleground states.
The root cause of the current trade war is the state-based winner take all system.
“Trump's Tariff Is a Gift to Swing States” – Bloomberg – 3/20/18
And conversely, Trump’s trade war, with China targeting red states, could hurt the very voters who put him in the White House.
“The Chinese are proving pretty adept at targeting so-called “red states” with their retaliatory tariffs on U.S. exports, in response to more aggressive tariffs from President Trump on Chinese imports.” – Forbes – 9/25/19
As trade and other tensions increase with foreign countries, U.S. foes and trading partners can micro-target their efforts against us. They're certainly going to target major U.S. exports like soybeans and pork and investments, and many of those are in areas like the Farm Belt. The agriculture community is concerned about it. There are other possible easily identified targets as well.
European Union officials quickly crafted possible retaliatory tariffs against American goods, using strategies using their knowledge of the effects of state winner take all laws for awarding electoral votes.
5
@mvymvy
Not to mention ethanol subsidies and corn syrup as a separate food group for government spending.
I appreciate the responses here, but I'm still not sure Kara Swisher got the message concerning vehicle ownership. She swipes back with, "keep all your gasoline-guzzling and climate-killing motor vehicles manned by humans" as if those of us who live outside of cities really have a choice. When technology gives us affordable, reliable and feasible non-polluting private vehicles that can haul stuff long distances, we'll gladly switch. Until then, I can't ride the trolley to my job in the exurbs and the Nebraska farmer who needs supplies can't call Lyft.
45
@StuAtl
I was shocked at Kara's reply, which was snarky and dismissive and utterly urban. Guess what, Ms. Swisher, quite a few of us still rely on those archaic 'land-lines'.
Because we don't have reliable cell phone reception.
And it's not just the 'motor vehicles'. It's the old tractors, bulldozers, skidsteers, etc. which small farm owners keep running by guts and by golly (with some help from spare parts found on eBay), which allow them to grow the 'fresh, local, organic' produce you probably shop for at your local farmers market.
Eventually, draft (animal) power will make a comeback. Maybe even in urban areas !
29
@StuAtl Touche. Nor can the Nebraska farmer afford a super stylish and equally expensive more ecological Tesla truck. If we want those folks to change, affordability must be part of the conversation. In the scheme of climate change, farmers who use pick ups are the least of our worries. Suburbanites who purchase $55K dual cabs and never haul anything other than dual gas tanks are much more of an issue.
26
@Mark
The base F-150 XLT lists for $28,000, a loaded Lariat runs more than $60,000.
The Tesla Cyber starts at $45,000 and tops out at $78,000.
30% premiums for 400%+ improvement in fuel costs is barely justified but the main cost factor for Tesla is the battery and the cost of battery technology is coming down fast.
2
The truly caustic comments are censored by the NYT Comments Editors.
So you really don't know what a lot of people think.
As a small example, my comments critisizing the NYT's capitalization of I in indigenous were censored.
No, your writers don't see that.
21
Maybe since your comment got through you can tell us all your issue with capitalizing Indigenous (as in the Indigenous Peoples of Nee Zealand). I’m dying to hear how I’m “too woke” because I capitalize an ethnic group’s reference.
So most of the authors responded to comments that disagreed with them or added something different. Bret Stephens responded to someone who agreed with him. Must be an example of Stephens's genetic and cultural predisposition to think better and think different.
24
@617to416
One might crticise Stephens's article on Jewish genius, but I think it unfair and questionable to refer to his own personal ethnic or cultural "predisposition" as a reason for what you regard as a too high sense of self in selecting a comment with which he agreed.
2
@Alan J. Shaw I think it was just sarcasm.
9
@Jennifer
Yes, it was sarcasm. Is there anyone less likely to choose a comment that might challenge his preconceptions and biases—that might force him to reconsider his way of thinking about the world—than the man who just published a column claiming that those of his own ethnicity are genetically and culturally predisposed to think better and think different?
3
The current state-by-state winner-take-all system does not reliably confer an illusory mandate on an incoming President. As a recent example, Bill Clinton did not receive such deference when he came into office with an eye-catching 370 electoral votes but only 43% of the popular vote in 1992.There is certainly no historical evidence that Congress, the media, the public, or anyone else has been more deferential to an incoming President after an election in which he received a larger percentage of the electoral vote than his percentage of the popular vote.
2
I didn't get a comment in on the Bret Stephens column on Jewish genius.
I'd like to ask him what he was hoping to accomplish with that column.
46
@Brad. I missed the early cutoff too, and I think what he achieved will be more apparent when school starts again and some innocents will get their first anti-Semitic beatings on the playgrounds. A more than tone-deaf article. A dangerous one.
11
No comments about your alternate ignoring and horrible treatment of Bernie Sanders, sigh. And I read so many of them.
24
To Mr. Leonhardt:
Declaring fake national emergencies is a core impeachable offense. Don't brush it off, please.
15
I learn as much from the Comments as I do from the articles themselves. I love hearing all of the different viewpoints on a subject. What impresses me the most is the quality of the comments. The moderating must be very good, because there is very little Trolling here.
55
I think that unmoderated comments sections are just as big a contributor to our nasty discourse as any of the other elements we usually point at, such as Twitter.
The NY Times has the only comments pretty much anywhere that I read, and it is because of that moderation. We can disagree, but there is no need for nastiness or off topic rants.
In my opinion, if a comments section is not moderated, it should not exist. It serves no positive purpose.
May the NY Times continue this excellent tradition and I call on other newspapers (looking at you, Washington Post) to do so as well.
138
I used to come to the site drunk and disorderly. Now my comments are reviewed before publication. I like it....as we all need some rules and regulations to moderate our worst instincts.
9
@Watah leave Duncan Ferguson out of it.
2
It's wonderful to know the writers read our comments. I think it's important to see what readers think about certain, if not all, subjects.
The New York Times is still the go-to publication in our country. The paper is highly esteemed and generally on point in their selection of subjects to cover.
I think commenting on current events is important for your readers. We're experiencing some unprecedented problems in our country and most of us are paying attention to absolutely everything that's written, tweeted, or expressed via the media.
Please know that although we write comments that may agree or disagree with what's written in your venerable newspaper, we are most appreciative of the effort involved in both the writing and investigation required in each and every article, editorial or opinion piece you print.
Thank you for your beacon of truth in this period of upheaval and dishonesty.
12
My only comment is........i wish they would have chosen one of my comments.
15
They do read our comments, that is until I posted one to the wrong article, which was posted.
In a follow up/reply comment I said that I guess that they don’t read the comments - that one was NOT posted.
5
@M. G., that’s funny!
In my observation, the Times does not allow direct criticisms of the paper, in comments, even though it says that such criticism is welcome. It does specifically prohibit attacks on its writers, but I think that these are both gray areas, open to moderator interpretation. I certainly see posted comments dissing both the paper and the writers. I think perhaps your rejected comment may be explained by item #11 in the comments rules, regarding bogging down the comment thread:
https://help.nytimes.com/hc/en-us/articles/115014792387-Comments
Happy commenting!
Kara Swisher thinks she made some kind of point about landlines, but only shows that she does not in fact get it.
If you need an antiquated gas guzzling auto to get around, chances are good you need a landline to make a phone call too.
Kara, time to get out of Manhattan - it's a big country out here! Just don't count on cell coverage or a commuter train everywhere you go.
80
@Morag And maybe journey to some other parts of the world while she is at it. New Zealand is a primarily an agricultural country, and many farms are miles from anything.
Instead of the snarky and condescending comment, she should have reflected on the challenges of moving beyond the automobile and perhaps conceded that different areas of the country have different needs.
I don't see cars going away in rural areas anytime soon, but they may get electrified in the near future. I imagine if farmers were able to charge vehicles off their own wind-power, they would change pretty quickly.
46
@Morag, agreed. Swisher’s reply to the comment made me even angrier than the original column did!
It’s it now tough to keep a landline, though, at least in rural California. AT&T long ago stopped making landline restoration a priority after outages (downed trees from storms, wildfires, etc.), so residents with landlines here can end up being left without phone connections for months. I live where there is no cell reception, so a couple years ago I dropped the landline and switched to a VOIP phone service.
Relying on Uber and friends to ferry me around (as Swisher does) is not an option for me. Friends are busy (and a i do not make such demands on people), and constant Uber use would break the bank. Besides, the last time we tried to use Uber to get to the airport, the driver got lost and simply did not show up.
Absolutely need my private car and my farm truck.
14
@Morag Agreed. Kara definitely didn't get the point of tthe whole exercise.
1
Ms. Swisher:
I don't have a butter churn or a thresher, but I still have a landline. I'd rather not, but my cell phone service is so bad, that I must stand, stock still, in one of three places in my house, or the call drops. My work requires long phone interviews, and I can rely on my landline, especially for international calls. Plus the sound quality of the landline beats my iPhone every time.
Not everything in the barn is worth discarding.
221
Live in a big city. Dislike my cell. Love my landline. So, ?
1
Moderated comments are a key reason I subscribe to NYTimes. Take a look at comments on other sites such as FiveThirtyEight, Politico or Washington Post. They're just awful. It's not just the name-calling and flaming; a lot of the posts are spam, mostly along the lines of how to make large amounts of money from home. You'd think those types of "comments" could be filtered out, but no.
36
@Evelyn
I've never seen spam at WaPo that wasn't quickly flagged and removed. And they're pretty particular about forbidden words.....in fact, it can be amusing to see how posters try to get around the restrictions. But I've never gotten involved in the other sites you mention.
1
@Patsy47
I too am amused at the creative ways some WaPo commenters get around the naughty-words filter.
But because the NYT is so squeaky-clean, by comparison, I am dazzled at the creativity of one commenter who got past the moderator here -- I have no idea how -- by embedding a rather popular transitive verb inside another word, in a truly unique coinage.
How ironic that NYT published that embedded word ALL BY ITSELF in a front-page story about Trump’s first reaction to news of the launch of the Mueller investigation. I still shake my head at that one.
1
Okay, but why is there no opportunity for readers to respond to Dana Goldstein's education coverage?
6
Can somebody explain how a NY Pick is decided?
Do writers actually read everything and award the star or does a computer do it it with AI.
34
@Paul I was wondering the same thing myself, esp. after I saw a "Times Pick" of a pro-Eddie Gallagher comment on the recent story last Friday about him. It was shocking, to say the least.
20
@Joel Well I know they pick the best written on both sides of a story. One can certainly differ on that but is it done by the staff. Do they read all of them or does a computer with Artificial Intelligence do it?
6
@Paul This comment wasn't well-written, just cliches, and yet, it was picked. So I dunno. Your guess is as good as mine, perhaps.
11
Folks: Every piece should have a Comment section opened at the time of the story's release.
It should also be accompanied by the email address of the writer(s).
Thank you,
Paul
9
@Paul Reinhartsen
I agree with you about opening each piece up to comments, but not about email addresses. Cannot even imagine opening those floodgates.
15
I found Paul Krugman's comment offensive. He acknowledge tht he didn't agree with the writer and complimented the individual by stating that's what makes it a good comment. In the next sentence he insults the writer of the comment by declaring he/she is misguided.
Me thinks Mr. Krugman has a serious ego problem.
18
@Rozie Thinks? No, you are correct. Krugman is a Nobel winning economist who believes he should have won a Nobel for every subject under the sun.
13
It doesn’t seem like stating facts should be taken as an insult.
24
His opinion not fact. Just because he says it doesn’t make it so. What he believes. Bulletin: Paul Krugman writes his opinion not fact. I stand by what I said. He is not the final arbiter of truth. He is an opinion writer. Nothing more. I or anyone else can agree or disagree with that opinion.
I suppose he was actually mild in his rebuke of the commenter. Misguided is basically saying you are wrong. He is entitled to his opinion.
2
Now is the time to acknowledge that folks from the Russian Federation excel at posting some of the funniest and most insightful comments.
And - unfortunately - the most incendiary and partisan .
You can call them trolls, and call them dishonest; but never should we call our Russian commentators incompetent.
8
Let's face it; many times I never finish the article before I start reading and contributing to the comments.
31
I have read tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of NYT comments over the last year. The place where the readership most differs with its columnists and editorial board is on the question of immigration enforcement. The readership gerenally favors legal immigration and loathes illegal immigration and asylum-seeking chicanery. That no columnist noted an opinion-reconsidering reader comment on the issue is frankly shocking.
24
@Snowball Your reading differs significantly from mine. But then, I live in Texas where even W wasn't stupid about our need for porous (NOT open) borders.
That was before the tragic need for asylum.
8
@Snowball Now that you mention it I have noticed the same thing and I do not understand it. It is a real issue that needs thoughtful consideration and I think that the NYT could contribute to a solution. A solution other than open borders.
6
@Snowball
We have 'porous' borders (thank you @Lee, for admitting to that) and then we have border control.
I don't believe I've ever seen a NYT columnist advocate for open borders. They all, conservative and liberal alike, believe that immigration is good for the country--conservatives for economic growth (don't want to be like Japan with its shrinking population) and liberals for growth and but also because it's right to accept refugees and people who need asylum.
I'm one of those commenters, liberal, who just wants reasonable border control. The problem is that 'conservative' commenters conflate being pro-immigration with desiring open borders. Then the arguments start among the commenters--I hate how many times I've had to assert that I know plenty of liberals (look where I come from) and none of us want open borders.
So, it really doesn't surprise me that none of them are addressing immigration. The issue seems to be more of a commenter problem.
12
I should have known David Brooks wouldn't be showing up in this column. Any actual criticisms of his ideas might drag him down form his ivory tower.
59
I'm very passionate with my opinions. Sometimes my comments aren't published. Am I being too "too"? I often times read the comments to an article instead of the article itself. Readers make marvelous, thought-provoking comments.
8
Don't see Brooks replying to any comments, which is sort of what a lot of us would expect.
24
I do have to take issue with the tone of Ms. Swisher's comments regarding the use of large gasoline vehicles in rural areas. There is a simple vulnerability to living in sparsely inhabited regions that she appears to not understand. Landing in a ditch with no help at hand and many areas without any cell signal means you are left to your own devices, and driving a pick-up truck with a winch might just save your life in freezing weather. As for your reference to land lines as if they are a quaint relic of the past, I live in a rural area without cell reception and the landline is a lifeline in emergencies.
76
In the age of the internet and social media I think it's time to take readers' comments to the next level. Let's face it - it's really difficult for one person to come up with an entire column that is interesting and original. So why not have a column on a particular topic that is made up entirely of reader's comments on that topic, with those comments selected by an editor and turned into a coherent column. It's crowd-sourcing meets the opinion pages.
15
Confession:
I think I’ve gotten the equivalent of at least a bachelor’s degree in humanities from reading the comment section alone.
My first comment, made in 2014, was inadvertently bigoted. I made some other bigoted comments later that year. I did t realize this...I was blind to my own biases. I’d never say something so inane again. I was blind to my own ignorance. It took bring challenged,or having things explained,for me to gain a much wider perspective.
I so appreciate learning this way....l
137
@GWE
Excellent comment, but I think you don't mean "inane":
1 : empty, insubstantial
2 : lacking significance, meaning, or point : silly inane comments
3
@GWE You said it. And add to that, economics and business - Bruce R; literature and knowledge - Red Sox; Christine, everything; NM - stating the profound in but a few sentences; hen3ry - moving and forthright; Rick G - always nails it; Marge K - uplifting and positive. I can go on because there are many more. As soon as I click on "submit," I will remember the rest!
14
@Kathy Lollock
Many regulars with fascinating things to say and ways to say them.
We were made aware of the passing of the conservative fellow and the limerick writer. But others seem to just vanish.
The person from Seattle, big-league Hillary supporter (thank you!), used a lot of ALL CAPS. Where'd she go?
The one called something like DC Barrister, always describing himself as a "Black lawyer with a degree in American History," endlessly trashing Obama.
Just wondering.
3
Kristoff often replies to commenters on his columns. That effort makes it clear that there is indeed a dialogue.
But he is among the least snarky, most generous in his take on people.
Some of your writers, to remain unnamed, could learn from him.
142
@Lee
Kristof has a good heart and that's one reason I enjoy his articles.
30
The Washington Post allows readers' comments on all articles. And the comments I've seen are all civil. Why can't The Times do the same? It's very frustrating to read an article on The Times that is crying out for comment when that feature isn't available.
25
@Pam Shira Fleetman The majority of comments on the WaPo websites are penned by Russians.. FYO..
8
@Pam Shira Fleetman
I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of the WaPo comments sections. Just take a gander at the comments under the article about the mass stabbing in Monsey, NY. It's a cesspool of trollery, bigotry, and inanity. Civility is missing.
The trolls and ne'er-do-wells are everywhere. It's practically guaranteed that for every comment you write, there will be at least one reply that will ruin your day. It's a cottage industry for some reason.
19
@Pam Shira Fleetman I have to disagree. I've seen an awful lot of nastiness on the Post page.
27
The second I read Farhad Manjoo's comment from a transgender man, I knew this would all be down hill. I lot of it is the writers reading comments that already align with their thinking. And a lot of obsession over the same topics such as trans-rights and Trump. To be fair, they include Krugman's comment that he disagrees with, though I guess Krugman picked the comment and this so plays into his ego as an academic. And they include a controversial comment on trans-rights by Tinabess, mostly to say "it’s good for me to be reminded of how gnarly issues of gender remain for many readers". Sigh.
I think I get it. The writers do read the comments. But their choice of article topics and choice of which comments to focus on still largely involves propping up their pre-existing opinions. The writers largely live in a bubble where the hot topics of the day are things like trans-rights and Trump, but the writers have absolutely no interest in the lives of average Americans. Never mind the working class, even the average college-educated middle class person is mostly focused on earning money to support their family/lifestyle and on making it through the day.
The really question is not whether the writers read the comments, but whether the writers step out of their New York bubble long enough to find real topics that are really worth writing about.
28
@James
Thank You.
5
‘I got the message’ — Kara Swisher
Kara, You definitely did not get the message with your patronizing snark of a reply. In rural texas and the rest of rural america, the choice of uber or ride sharing is non-existent. In parts of Texas it could be 50 to 100 miles to a grocery store, and if you live on a ranch or have long dirt roads to drive you have to have a working truck. They might consider the electric versions when they arrive, if the charge can hold long enough. As far as the land lines, some parts of Texas still doesn't even have cell service, so we wish that AT&T bothered to service the land lines our tax dollars subsidized but those are being abandoned. And, don't even talk about internet, that is still a dream to many. So you bask in your smugness of utilizing a company that takes advantage of their drivers and hail that uber while the rest of America, who has no choice, grows your food while using their gas guzzling climate killers.
215
@Cynda Well said. Part of the problem may be urban dwellers really do not understand how much of rural America lives or what challenges these people face. I, too, would like to walk or take a tram to work, picking up a croissant and a nice latte along the way. Unfortunately, none of these things are available to me.
65
I couldn't have said this better. The harsh realities of living in rural regions is not being recognized by the majority of urban dwellers.
44
@JSD Thank you
11
Thank you, NYT, for this. It's terrific.
9
Sometimes, I skip the article entirely and go straight to the comments. Life is short, read the comments first!
244
@Deborah H. Not a good idea. Forming opinions on the fly without studying the underlying arguments is something Trump does.
2
@Deborah H.
I thought I was the only one!
5
@Deborah H.
Guilty as charged. It’s particularly tempting when the headline is a question.
5
Re Jackie in Missouri's comment, the Wiccan Rede is actually "An it harm none, do what ye will" -- not "And it harm none ..."
"An" is an archaic word meaning "if" (as in the Shakespearean "An it please thee ...").
It's encouraging to know that the writers take note of readers' comments. Thanks for this piece.
15
@JR
Thank you, I was going to write the same.
4
This essay would be more convincing if not for the decreasing number of articles on which comments are allowed.
I, in the past, read the NYT at least as much for the comments section as the stories reported. The decrease in comments allowed decreases my interest in the entire paper.
32
Kara Swisher’s response is tone deaf at best. Yes, technology will change transportation throughout the country. But you response about keeping gas guzzling, climate destroying vehicles is rude at best. There are reasons why rural areas require the vehicles they do, and your condescension is part of why you might find it difficult to communicate with rural people. And you wonder why some in flyover country consider urban dwellers as effete snobs. See, it works both ways.
139
@T Smith I live in a semi-rural area of suburbia. My husband drives a truck and he does a lot of hauling timber, bricks, etc. The truck however is an old small Toyota model that is unavailable now in todays market. He is greatly frustrated by the new monster truck designs that have replaced it and so repairs his to keep it going. Our neighbors drive the new monster versions and I have not yet seen them hauling anything . They are for show and their own personal sense of prestige in my opinion.
16
@Gail I am sure there is much to what you say. However, our experience with trucks over the past few years reveals the latest models of full size trucks often get better mileage than some older models of compact pickup trucks. Also, you say you live in a semi rural/suburban area so the real need for trucks is probably less than you would find in true farming and ranching areas so you are probably right about your neighbor’s motivations!
3
@T Smith
While I have learned to appreciate Swisher's interrupt-y style on her podcast, Recode Decode, in some instances — she sometimes derails guests from wandering or heading down un-illuminating cul de sacs — I'd say that, for a person justifiably angry at the president's clear narcissism, she teeters on the brink of narcissism herself.
For example, when Sam Harris correctly interpreted on her podcast that her tossed-off tweet about the possibility of meeting him ("No thanks.") was likely interpreted by readers as demeaning to Harris, she simply refused to acknowledge that he was almost certainly right.
She's smart, open to hearing different points of view, and an important voice, particularly on the dangers of tech. But as with her comments in this story, she does appear to have trouble with humility and accepting that yes, she can be wrong.
4
What a refreshing idea--I hope this becomes a regular feature! Thanks to all who contributed to it, including the readers whose comments inspired it.
9
I just want to take a moment here to say a big THANK YOU to all the NYT readers that take time to comment and to the NYT itself for using its resources to moderate and publish those comments. Over the years I have learned SO much about so many different things from other readers’ commentary as well as reader responses to my own. Please keep this vital part of your publication going strong!
241
@Nancy Finnegan
I only wish that The Times would leave comments open a little longer to allow more counter-replies, which would create more of a conversation. It is very frustrating not to be able to respond to a direct challenge of a published comment.
1
I am grateful for the opportunity to communicate with your writers, readers, and other commenters. Thank you from the bottom of my anxious worried little heart. We are longtime readers of the print version of the NY Times. I submitted my very first online comment ever in January 2017. I am looking forward to taking a short commenting vacation once he who shall not be named is either voted out of office or (however unlikely) convicted in the Senate.
14
@Robert -
Sadly, I think your vacation will not end until January 20, 2025. I wish it were otherwise, but I'm not sanguine.
4
A very important feature - author replies to comments on articles written.
More of this would further bolster the contribution of the NYT discussion to the education of all of us.
5
Columnists in the NYT are some of the best in the business, but the comments are without parallel. I particularly like the fact that the NYT picks of the comments make it a point to select a diversity of views. I have learned at least as much from the comments as the columns. This is the Town Hall of 21st Century America.
271
@Victor James
I also appreciate the intentional diversity of NYT Picks. I'm glad you mentioned this, as quite a few readers think "NYT Pick" means the Times approves of the viewpoint in the comment. I believe they are intended to represent the general trends in the comments.
33
I agree, but wish there was a way to advance the argument, especially taking the author to task for some unfounded statement they made. Opinion based on unsupported facts should not be allowed to stand. Solid examples and arguments in comments should force retraction and earn author a demerit. And we should work hard on both sides of the fence to hold journalists' feet to the fire.
@Victor James Exactly! Even when I virulently disagree with the comment (especially when it's clearly not troll-produced), I appreciate reading another PoV.
3
It's ok if your writers do not always read our comments. Judging from many of the bizarre comments one sees in this forum, it is apparent that some commenters do not always read the columns on which they are commenting.
16
@Jay Orchard
There are many comments here that openly admit to this little vice.
Kara Swisher: Despite Steve's comment, you don't seem to have tried to put yourself in the shoes of a person who lives in a small town or in a rural area. Many people in rural areas need pickup trucks to transport equipment or tools for their livelihoods. They also may need to do house repairs and upkeep without the professional help of contractors, carpenters, and plumbers, either because such professionals are often overbooked or too expensive. That sort of work requires hauling pipes and lumber. If you have a compact car, it can take four or five trips to Lowe's to haul what a truck can carry in one load. At 45 miles a trip, that's a lot of gas.
I'm sure that hybrid pickups will become more popular than they are now, but they have not been on the market for many years; it took a while for hybrid cars to catch on too.
And as for land lines, they are still popular in places where cell reception isn't good. There are such places in the US.
63
@Kenny Becker Yes, one absolutely needs a "hauler" living anywhere except for cities, also for safe and practical driving. My driveway and many public area (parks, trails, municipal facility) roads are dirt and uneven, and even the paved roads are often not able to be plowed quickly. One cannot have a small, low-to-the-ground compact car.
24
RE: "Yes, Our Writers Do Read Your Comments"
The question I've been asking is do our comments influence your next column(s)? Or, is it just that great minds think a like and it takes a bit longer to get your writing through the editors and copy writers than it does for us to post a comment?
More than once I have made a comment with a theory or observation and then a day or two later I have seen an editorial that covers exactly that point. Sometimes when I've written a comment making the connection, with a link to my prescience comment, it gets posted. Other times not.
I don't mind inspiring Times writers at all. It would just be nice to know that I did from time to time.
6
What I would like to know is which 2019 Opinion or article really hit some nerves (or passion,) and generated the most comments - political or otherwise.
10
That's good to know. I have been commenting since April or so. Before I used to post them to Facebook and my commentary there. I like the NYTimes comments section. It's a positive place to discuss the news and opinions of the day without vitriol. They're cultivated, so not everything makes it up, but I'd say 90% of what I write goes up. If it doesn't, it's no big deal. I just publish the article with my comments to Twitter or Facebook, which probably is even better for the Times because it markets their fine journalism beyond what a comment could do.
3
The great H.L. Mencken regarded readers who wrote letters to the editor as “idiots.”
But he himself, utilizing pen names, frequently wrote letters to the editor commenting negatively upon his own articles, to which he, writing in his own name, then replied.
There is something about seeing one's name in print and getting one's two-cents-worth-in that makes a day complete.
11
I say that the commenters on the NYT are the very best. They're intelligent and well -informed and not afraid to state opinions even in disagreement. I do wish, however, that the NYT would give us at least five minutes to edit.
95
@J.Sutton Best comment of all and one I've made before. How about an edit function to fix those glaring typos and what not? Also how are the NYT picks chosen? Some are so dumb - I speak mainly of pro-Trump comments - I would think the paper would be embarrassed.
16
@Sammy Zoso
I thought those comments were to spark a conversation, or conversion?
Or a 56 reply pile-on, either way.
19
@Sammy Zoso I don't think they choose "picks" because of agreement so much as to highlight different viewpoints on both sides. Having said that, I often disagree with the choices and think some not so designated are much more noteworthy than some that are (aside from what I personally agree with).
22
My favorite is when someone with a conservative or right leaning point of view says "Of course the liberal New York Times won't print this comment" and if civil most times the paper does print it ( I know because I am reading it!) It is wonderful to read all opinions even if they differ from our own.
46
I have to tell you, NYT, that I am always surprised when any of my comments get space in your comments section. I generally feel the need to express a feeling or opinion and didn't really do that until November, 2016. Whereupon, I felt a nervous breakdown coming on and discovered that I could vent, if only to a A1 'person'. Whether it was published was beside the point Thank you!
21
Kara Swisher just can't let go of being snarky. Geez. Could you just try to see someone's point of view on the fact that (1) there is no public transportation in rural areas; (2) you can't haul fence fixing etc equipment on your bicycle. I suggest you broaden your perspective......maybe take a road trip?
336
@Susan Ha! Well said Susan! Even Krugman couldn't resist getting a couple of digs in. Yeesh, lighten up!!
41
@Susan Her response came off as both snarky and ignorant. Rural Americans don't use trucks (and landlines, for that matter) because they're old-fashioned and stubborn; they use them because the other options aren't easily available to them (public transportation) or don't work too well where they live (cell phone/internet coverage can be spotty).
129
@Susanna
I use my landline because it always works, even when the power is out.
60
Consider yourself (somewhat) lucky here at The NY Times, which, while refusing to allow commenting on a lot of stories (at least: not the majority), still has a “healthy” number which allow commenting, and contrast that with the, frankly, dreadful policy my hometown LA Times inaugurated this past July, wherein the Times now allows commenting on only three articles per day, all selected by the Times (articles that are frequently on non-contentious, trivial subjects). People have been furious over this “silencing”.
18
@gmck As a fellow L.A. Times subscriber I applauded their new website but have also encouraged them to allow comments. Unfortunately before their new program the comments were ruined by some trolls as they weren't good about moderating. I hope they figure out how to emulate the N.Y. Times in their comment protocols.
6
Great to see. As a frequent commenter, I’ve often wondered if the writers read our additions. And, of course, I can't resist commenting :)
To Mr. Bouie, “...the argument against the Electoral College...that it exaggerates the size of a political victory, which encourages the sense that the winner has a “mandate” and can disregard political MAJORITIES” - in Trump’s case. Trump and McConnell are clearing governing for a minority, and ignoring the majority of voters. And, getting away with it.
14
@John Ranta
The electoral college is a form of affirmative action, for less populated states. I wonder how the folks from those states, who get a say bigger than their proportion of the US population, feel about other forms of affirmative action.
10
It is a treat for readers when 'Writers' reply to comments, promoting dialogue, as well as clarifying points which commenters may misinterpret.
Very nice to see what 'Writers' remember from commenters, so this reader will note that Gail Collins's "herd of rabid ferrets" characterization of House GOP'ers is a memorable bit of wordsmithery.
27
It was no one piece -- it was the fact of a conversation, a discussion, an exchange. NYTimes is pretty much the only forum where I will willingly take a walk in the comments section. I will find things I didn't know, hadn't considered, angles and perspectives worth mulling on. I don't know anywhere else where online discussions about challenging topics can be initiated and run without them instantly devolving into invective, baiting, tribalism and cancel politics. Please keep it up, NYTimes. We need these spaces so very badly.
135
Best Recent Comment --
"If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.” David Frum
170
@TWShe Said: I agree, so can we please stop calling these people "conservatives"? In the United States, there's nothing even vaguely "conservative" about a willingness to abolish democracy.
49
@RR
Where did this Trope about Conservatives
willingness to abolish democracy start ?
What absolute proof do you have ?
2
@John Brown -- My point exactly. Pay attention:
TWShe Said, like many other people on the Left these days, refers to persons who would abolish democracy when democracy doesn't serve their purpose as "conservatives." That's just wrong: Real American conservatives would NEVER consider limiting/abolishing American democracy. Abolishing democracy is not a conservative value -- it's a RADICAL value. Let's keep that straight, PLEASE.
5
So by my count all but two of the comments selected for inclusion here - out of literally millions posted on nytimes.com - essentially agree with the columnist.
The other two?
In one, Ms. Swisher lets the fur fly by ranting about "gasoline-guzzling and climate-killing motor vehicles manned by humans" in response to a reader whose livelihood probably feeds OES dilettantes like herself.
In the other Paul "9/11 will jumpstart the economy" Krugman smugly declares from his St. Croix villa that "a lot of people share your misconceptions".
What was that Mr. Kristoff said about conversations having replaced lectures?
20
@Charles
Actually the very first one was a comment disagreeing with Farhad Manjoo, who received the criticism gracefully and with an acknowledgement that his position needed further thought.
24
To Rachel Harris and Lisa Tarchak, this was fun to read, thank you. I support and promote the New York Times for it's excellent and important work. I also work daily to understand climate change and the sixth extinction, and how to change human trajectories before they self-implode. The Times is useful in this work, while my massage therapist complains she can't afford the Times, but misses its sections on human science and human health.
My main point here, is that I enjoy explaining to others how important the comments section is, to making the Times great. An excellent piece of reporting or journalism then runs through the gauntlet of reader comments, and often, some very intelligent readers add to the feast of ideas, facts, or opinions. I sometimes wonder if the Times realizes just how valuable this side show is, to the strength of their base product. My favorite example, was a young man who visited a right wing man with gun refusing to pay his fees for grazing his cattle on federal lands. After the piece which was fascinating, other neighboring farmers wrote in and commented, that he should be arrested, because the federal fee of a few dollars per head, was peanuts to the cost of $50 a head for running a private ranch.
David blogs at InconvenientNews.net.
4
@David Lindsay Jr.
What Sixth Extinction ?
1
@John Brown The Holocene extinction, otherwise referred to as the sixth mass extinction or Anthropocene extinction, is an ongoing extinction event of species during the present Holocene epoch as a result of human activity. This large number of extinctions spans numerous families of plants and animals, including mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles and arthropods. Wikipedia
4
Commenting on a story about comments on stories... Well, I do notice that the comments on stories in the NYT often add extra layers of expert input to the subject at hand, so I enjoy reading them and find them valuable elements of the overall reading experience here. It seems a great many readers of this newspaper possess various types of expertise at impressive levels, and in ways that are diverse not only philosophically or by professional background, but in terms of where they live around the country or around the world.
Perhaps the moderators deserve some credit for too for the general quality of discourse among the comments. But either way, or thanks to both, the comments on NYT stories are generally a good read--whereas in a great many other publications the comments sections read like a prank being played by some outrageous Juvenalian or Menippean satirist trying to show the bizarre worst of the human condition.
38
@V.B. Zarr
Seconded.
There is no higher quality of reader commentary than here at the Times. Nothing is even close. (And I read a LOT of commentary.)
The editors and writers at the Times take their curatorial responsibilities seriously in a way very few others do, and for that we can be thankful.
20
"Asking for a nation seeking common-sense gun regulation."
I really did laugh out loud. And guns are also not permitted in any House or Senate office building either, I might add. Been that way for many years. Nobody cares where you go once you're inside, but you can't come packing.
73
@raven55
Apparently the good folks in the Senate, Congress and Supreme Court think their safety is more important than the children in schools or adults at Synagogs, Churches and concerts.
64
@raven55 Whenever the NH House flips parties, the rule about guns being allowed in the chamber flips as well. A few years back Republicans took over, and the first order of business was once again allowing folks to carry guns in the hall (the previous Democratic majority had outlawed them). The NH GOP was not foolish, though. After protesters entered the hall carrying signs, the NH GOP passed a new law, outlawing the carrying of sticks. Seriously. Sticks and stones, etc etc...
22
@John Ranta
:) I (almost) only believe this astonishing information because it is so characteristic of the Republican Party.
11
The fact that readers can submit their comments which often times illuminates a refreshing different point of view is one of the reasons the NYT is a first class newspaper.
Thank you for allowing us readers to share/debate/challenge varying comments and articles. Having this opportunity keeps the pencil constantly sharpened as well keeping one's mind open for discussion.
A sincere and hearty thanks to all commenters for taking the time to share your thoughts and objections, and a special sincere thanks to the entire NYT staff.
You folks rock!!!
88
@Marge Keller And so do you, Marge!
1
"The best comments get me wishing I had another bite at the apple, that I could go back and say it over again better."
This is a revealing question. Why CAN'T he? Articles on this site stay up for years, with their gaps and inaccuracies intact. Short of a monumental screwup (I won't name names...) corrections tend to be small and low-profile. I know that there always comes a point where you need to move on to the next piece, but why in 2019 must articles remain as they were originally published? I suppose it keeps people honest if they can't edit away their mistakes, but can't honesty be served in some other way?
10
@John Murphy But would the Times still be "the newspaper of record" if it let writers continually revise what they'd already published or posted? Short of typos and factual errors, I think the work should stand. Columnists do get additional bites at the apple, most of them two or three times a week.
2
@John Murphy In recent weeks, I made an objection to an article which was short of a certain journalistic factual standard. Although my letter wasn't published, the correction was made by the NYT the next day.
3
@John Murphy In recent weeks, I made an objection to an article which was short of a certain journalistic factual standard. Although my letter wasn't published, the correction was made by the NYT the next day.
I applaud the Times for its Comments Section which is, indeed, a significant embellishment to its articles and opinion pieces.
I assume the quality of the comments is due, not only to the intelligence and sophistication of the readership, but also to the fact comments are moderated by actual people, rather than a software program that only hunts for bad words.
I also subscribe to the Washington Post, but their comments section is a complete waste of time. It deteriorates instantly into gibberish and name calling. A serious shortcoming for a national paper, as so much of the reader experience migrates online.
267
@Sparky I've had that same complaint for a long time. The Post's comment sections seem to be aggressively trolled and passively monitored, if at all. The contrast between two newspapers considered to be together at the top level of quality is striking.
75
@Sparky Here here. The Atlantic opted out of comments (cowardice or cheapness?) which made their publication much less appealing.
34
@John Ranta
At the very least, a lot less interesting in addition to much less appealing. Seems more like laziness and arrogance (not caring what the reader thinks) than anything else.
11
Thanks to the NYT and its writers for enduring our comments. I like reading the writers and the subsequent comments. Times readers are generally more on top of things than the average American based on what I read.
I saw a pickup truck parked in the local library lot (the location is significant). Bumper stickers read: infowars.com, flatearth101.com, MAGA and a likeness of Trump, and the inevitable American flag. I wish I'd taken a photo.
I was talking with a Trump supporter who said she was happy Trump raised her social security payments. I pointed out that the President doesn't raise anyone's social security payments, that it is built into the system based on inflation estimates.
She said, 'Oh.'
It might prove interesting, hilarious, sad, to write a piece on what people believe the President can do and what he (or she, you never know) can actually do. Maybe a true-false and multiple choice questionnaire.
156
@Dasha Kasakova That is a wonderful idea! I think many people don't know what aspects of their daily life are determined by the POTUS' actions and what aspects are influenced, perhaps through aspiration and goals, by the POTUS. Particularly in an election year, I'd be curious what people think. And I don't see this as a matter of liberal/conservative. More a civics lesson we could all benefit from.
33
@Dasha Kasakova
Oh, yeah, the inevitable flag.
I am no flag waver myself, but I love what it stands for and cherish memories of my son's Scouting experience where he learned flag protocol and the respect that goes with it.
When I see these MAGA-bumper-stickered assault vehicles also adorned by Old Glory -- filthy, tattered, torn to shreds by wind and weather -- I am tempted to pick up a key and ...
No, I never have and never will, but boy am I tempted.
3
Dear Kara Swisher,
Rather than focus on tech-shaming rural Texan Steve, it's possible that NJ commenter Chris Rasmussen had a more apposite comment on your "I'm SO Done With Cars" story from last Spring:
"My advice (which, admittedly, I sometimes ignore): never predict the future of technology. Especially in print. It is a recipe for making a fool of yourself, and your predictions will haunt you for years. I guess that, too, is a prediction. Do as I say, not as I do."
67
I often compare the comments to a NYT story to those on the websites of other publications/media outlets (WSJ, WP, Fox "News", etc.), and almost universally, the NYT comment section is better-informed, less vindictive, and more compassionate than other places.
I consider the readers' perspective a critical part of the news story, and it's one area where the switch from print to digital has enhanced the experience.
479
@Gabriel H
I think the fact that it's moderated is one of the things that makes it good. Moderating is expensive, but worth it to me.
90
Yes, yes, yes.
I, too, appreciate the comments of news pieces. And I agree that NYT commenters tend to be better informed than those of many other media sources (U.S.-based, anyway). On the other hand, I’m disappointed when I come across an article and there are no comments, or they’re disabled by the writer/publication. While I’m often disgusted or at least disappointed in the expressed perspectives of others, I still appreciate knowing a little more about what the rest of the country or world is thinking about a topic or issue.
25
@Gabriel H --I agree that the reader comments greatly enhance news and opinion pieces published in the Times. They round out any issue. The commenters are generally insightful and polite. And I absolutely agree that moderation of comments makes all the difference. Times reader comments are the only ones I read consistently, because most comments in other publications are mean-spirited and illuminate the subject very little.
16
I am 21 year-old gen z’er. I used to almost exclusively browse content on reddit, but have found myself increasingly using the New York Times app. The two things driving the switch are the quality of the content and the comments. I like that you can expect the information here to be correct, unlike reddit, but almost equally important is that the comments are so personable and (usually) high-level. The comments here add so much color, perspective, and substance to the stories.
I even bought a student subscription for 1$ a week.
359
@Josh M-I started reading the Times, when my college sociology class required me to report on a current new article. At the time, the NyTimes was free for college students, and I have kept my subscription going since then now paying the full fee (proudly). That was over thirteen years ago. You are right, the information here is 'high-level' and provides the detail required to have a nuanced opinion. You'll find the comments, and even the news, span a vast array of perspective that often challenge your own viewpoint. That is the beauty of it. As a whole, the Times provides the reader the resources to form their own educated opinions. You made a great choice subscribing.
30
@Josh M Bravo for you. I first started reading the NYT when they made student subscriptions of the paper available for $1 a month, which will tell you something. It did create a lifelong habit. Good, bad or otherwise, the NYT attempts to not only inform, but broaden the dialogue, which we are badly need. The comments section just expands that. In the end, it's what you don't know that factors larger into every decision we make than we can imagine.
23
@Josh M
That's a great story. The NYT is indeed some of the best writing and reporting on the planet. I would also suggest maybe taking it up an intellectual notch as well and add the New York Review of Books to your list. No comments, but quite fascinating in its own right. And some truly great writing.
11
"Frankly, I’ve heard all the arguments by now, but this brief comment stood out for its wry humor and sense of irony — a lost art." - Linda Greenhouse.
I don't think this comment was meant to be "wry humor" or "irony." It's a legitimate question. Why do I have to send my child to school when I know they are completely vulnerable to being gunned down there, when the Supreme Court justices are free to enter their workplace without that worry? I think the comment was a serious query. Maybe when the Supreme Court has to face the same gun threats that our children face every day they will be qualified to hand down fair decisions on the 2nd Amendment.
218
@Annie That the question is legitimate--which of course it is--isn't negated by an ironic justaposition; indeed, the irony underscores the double standard or willing blindness of our government's leaders. And you surely aren't serious when you suggest that the gun restriction in the Supreme Court building should be lifted to bring those leaders to their senses. For one thing, it wouldn't work.
25
@Annie
Ms. Greenhouse assumed we would recognize the seriousness of the issue and simultaneously appreciate the comment's ability to summarize it in few words and a smart turn of phrase.
30
@PMJ -
But there is no "double standard". No one is preventing local school boards from installing metal detectors staffed by trained security. Except, perhaps, local residents who don't want their taxes raised to pay for it.
3
I devote a few minutes to reading the comments on most articles I read. The breadth of life experience, the depth of knowledge, and the expansive humanity of Times readers is reassuring in this troubled era.
532
@Dave Agreed!!
13
@Dave
Amen! Right on!
3
@Dave Yes and it's SUCH a unique aspect to have a fully moderated comments section where thoughtful debate is actively encouraged. I can't think of any other similar comments section online and it is by far my favourite part of most articles. Keep up the good work, NYT and all you amazing commenters.
16
Paul Krugman is giving a federal tax burden at 24 percent, leaving out state and local. Those are at least as much as federal in many of the nicer areas of the country, for many higher income people. I'm not sure if the 50 percent figure given for Western Europe he gives in comparison is "all in" or not, but I know enough to know there is something funny about these numbers, since the US is much bigger than Western European countries and the latter may not devolve nearly as much spending to the decentralized levels. This sort of smoke and mirrors does not aid credibility.
6
You are incorrect. He is taking into account state and local taxes. For example, see https://www.oecd.org/tax/revenue-statistics-united-states.pdf which compares the US to other OECD countries. On the last page it breaks down where the taxes are coming from: it shows property and sales taxes, which are collected by state and local governments in the US. These are apples to apples comparisons across the OECD.
The most recent data is from 2018. Krugman accurately stated the US value, but, if anything, slightly exaggerated the tax burdens in Western Europe: there are indeed eight countries in this data set above 40%, not including some notable W. European countries, like Britain and Germany not in that range (although there are ten more countries in the data set above 35%). But the overall point of a much higher tax burden in most developed countries, especially Western Europe, is completely correct: among the OECD only Ireland, Chile and Mexico have lower tax burdens than the US.
22
@Bo No where in the US are state or local taxes as high as Federal taxes. This sort of smoke and mirrors does not aid credibility.
10
@Joe
When I lived in the SF Bay Area
40 % of my income went to Taxes.
For what ?
High Crime.
Neighbor had her house broken into at
midnight, babysitting her grand-daughter
the miscreants tied her up and said if the
she somehow called the cops they would kill
grand-daughter. After two hours they left, she
eventually untied herself, called the Police and their only question was were they still in the house ?
No, OK go to our Web site and fill in an form
telling us what happened...
Crowded Freeways
Brown-Outs
Lousy Schools
and
a two foot pothole right outside City Hall
that ruined my left front wheel suspension.
Still waiting for the city to pay it off.
2
I like Nicholas Kristof's response because it focuses on how the internet can expand human interaction and the sharing of ideas. Most readers of the Times probably often lament the negative consequences of having such free (often), easy, and anonymous connections to strangers--the bullying, the lying, the outspoken hatred of others--but we should also take stock of the benefits online communities bring. One other thing: Mr. Kristof might have said "we've moved from lectures to seminars," and I do appreciate his less elitist formulation.
32
I like it when the author of a column responds to some the comments in more or less real time. Obviously not all the (sometimes) hundreds of comments can be answered, but the top five or ten can.
I always read at least a sampling of the comments. It’s good to see what people think, and I often get new information. Times readers tend to be well informed.
378
@Philip S. Wenz
I have to agree here. The quality of comments here at the Times tends to be quite good.
I credit the writers obviously, but I also very much credit the Times itself for choosing to employ the manpower it takes to review the comments before publishing them.
I also subscribe to the Washington Post. It is also an excellent paper, but its comments sections are cesspools because it relies on machines to check in real time, and if you can get past the filters boom, it's published. The result? More trolling, course language, you name it.
NYT is doing it right, and I am proud to support the Grey Lady with my money.
110
@Nathan Hansard I also subscribe to WaPo, but I've never bothered to create a commenting profile. Their comments section often comes across as a "I know you are, but what am I" sort of affair, which is more than a bit off-putting. Granted, I'm not beyond the occasional snark here and there if I think something's silly, but to most things there are occasional exceptions.
15
@Nathan Hansard: Yes, the WaPo comments sections are the wild west when it comes to comments, but they sure can be fun to read ;-p
14
We readers have so few ways to express our opinions and feelings. The worst thing newspapers online have done is to let the social media companies dictate that we must join before we can comment. There are many of us who dont want to be beholden to Facebook, Instagram, or the many others who want our personal info.
254
@pb Great point. I despise Facebook (for obvious reasons), and I hate seeing that blue tinged “login to comment” on many sites. There is one shared commenting platform that some media sites use - Disqus. It’s quite good.
26
@pb I agree; federated logins (using your Facebook login to access non-Facebook sites) definitely raise serious privacy concerns. If that login is compromised, it's a total nightmare. For non-tech companies, maintaining an independent login system is complicated and expensive, I think, so they try to outsource it as often as possible. Not sure if you were referring to the Times specifically or if you were referring to other sites, but the Times does offer the option to create an account with an email address. I don't have a Facebook account and so an email login is how I access the commenting sections here. Other sites often offer the option, but it's usually buried as a teeny tiny link on the account creation page, as they probably prefer you don't use it.
18
@pb I understand, but I have some experience with this. The reason some smaller papers went that route is because they simply couldn't monitor comments 24/7, which unfortunately is necessary to avoid abuse, particularly from those hiding behind anonymity. The NYT has the wherewithal to do this but a struggling small daily with limited resources does not.
14