Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Discuss H&R posts and other Reason articles here.
User avatar
D.A. Ridgely
Posts: 21162
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:09
Location: The Other Side

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by D.A. Ridgely »

Warren wrote: 03 Dec 2020, 14:43
D.A. Ridgely wrote: 03 Dec 2020, 11:41 Reason and other advocacy journals are the only places journalists might acceptably state whom they voted for
Acceptable to whom?
To their employers. Straight journalism is supposed to be objective, so reporters are never supposed to say, never mind how otherwise obvious it is, who they support in an election. That's not a problem with The Nation, National Review, Reason, etc. but it is for the NY Times, CBS, etc.
User avatar
Warren
Posts: 31030
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by Warren »

D.A. Ridgely wrote: 03 Dec 2020, 15:14 Straight journalism is supposed to be objective, so reporters are never supposed to say, never mind how otherwise obvious it is, who they support in an election
I think Reason addresses this whenever they post their staff picks. I find it wanting as well. Objective reporting is a fiction and disclosing personal views doesn't denigrate the reporting. Quite the contrary, it lends it some integrity.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
User avatar
Jadagul
Posts: 7844
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:51

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by Jadagul »

Warren wrote: 04 Dec 2020, 00:48
D.A. Ridgely wrote: 03 Dec 2020, 15:14 Straight journalism is supposed to be objective, so reporters are never supposed to say, never mind how otherwise obvious it is, who they support in an election
I think Reason addresses this whenever they post their staff picks. I find it wanting as well. Objective reporting is a fiction and disclosing personal views doesn't denigrate the reporting. Quite the contrary, it lends it some integrity.
Right, but that's not the rule most news outlets follow. Hence "Reason is one of the only places journalists might acceptably state whom they voted for". It's explicitly against the rules of employment everywhere else!

Yglesias made a comment the other day that now that he's gone independent, he's allowed to actually say out loud that he's glad Trump lost, which was against the rules while he worked at Vox.
User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 25719
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by JasonL »

Current 5thC dances around this a bit at the beginning. They do an odd thing where they act like twitter invented the donor story not Shikha herself.

I do think we are entering a world in which institutions might need policy adjustments about discussing departures. The new vibe is flame throwing on your way out so that's the story everyone has to digest. Deviation from mission is a thing in advocacy journalism. Like if you are a reasonoid and you come to jesus on banning firearms, regulating everything in sight and so on at a certain point you aren't a variant of the big tent libertarian take as they put it, you are simply something else advocating for other stuff.

The public critique does seem to mirror grylliadian kerfuffles. To some such as Radley out in the world and maybe Eric or Shem here - your coverage has to lead with unique awfulness of Trump and conservatives and treat the other side as kind of understandable if they have any excesses but they don't matter anyway. Like it literally has to be shit on trump all day every day or you are somehow compromised. Warren makes this point and he and I don't see this exactly the same way but that does very much seem to be the point both internally and in the public discussion around reason. This whole thing where "you can point to articles critical of trump but nowhere near enough" is goofy to me. A) it's a lot of articles about a lot of stuff and in particular the immigration and trade war; b) how much is enough, do they have to literally be Jacobin? Radley talks about this in I think that daily beast piece suggesting something just like this - that there is no other story in the whole world and nobody else doing anything actually matters or is even fabricated.

As I mentioned in the other thread, if the line is "only talk about the powerful" I can only assume it will at some point soon be ok to talk about Biden and Kamala doing the awful shit they want to do.
User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 26799
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by Jennifer »

JasonL wrote: 04 Dec 2020, 08:56 This whole thing where "you can point to articles critical of trump but nowhere near enough" is goofy to me.
There's a difference between articles criticizing Trump as just more of the same old same old (while the agazine as a whole spends as much if not more ink sneering at anti-Trumpers), and articles saying that yeah Trump is unique by Aerican standards, Like that Gillespie v Dalmia Twitter exchange linked upthread -- Gillespie pretending Trump is merely the latest in a line of "US presidents with crappy attitudes about immigration" while Dalmia pointed out that no, Trump actually is objectively worse than his predecessors.
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b
User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 25719
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by JasonL »

But, ok. Is that take by Gillespie "trumpy"?

ETA: there is no measure that shows anything other than BHO being the undisputed king of using law enforcement to remove immigrants. I'm not saying this is the only thing to look at in a "who is worst" contest but it's not nothing and it isn't so trivial that simply pointing out things like this makes one unreasonably trumpy.

https://www.cato.org/blog/deportation-r ... erspective
User avatar
Warren
Posts: 31030
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by Warren »

JasonL wrote: 04 Dec 2020, 08:56 A) it's a lot of articles about a lot of stuff and in particular the immigration and trade war; b) how much is enough, do they have to literally be Jacobin? Radley talks about this in I think that daily beast piece suggesting something just like this - that there is no other story in the whole world and nobody else doing anything actually matters or is even fabricated.
c) No matter how poorly the left/team blue acts, you can't be critical of them because that is pro-trump.
d) If the donors couldn't tolerate her anti-trumpim, why now? Do they blame her for the election results? It literally doesn't matter anymore, so just for spite? It doesn't add up.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
User avatar
nicole
Posts: 11124
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 16:28

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by nicole »

Warren wrote: 04 Dec 2020, 09:20
JasonL wrote: 04 Dec 2020, 08:56 A) it's a lot of articles about a lot of stuff and in particular the immigration and trade war; b) how much is enough, do they have to literally be Jacobin? Radley talks about this in I think that daily beast piece suggesting something just like this - that there is no other story in the whole world and nobody else doing anything actually matters or is even fabricated.
c) No matter how poorly the left/team blue acts, you can't be critical of them because that is pro-trump.
d) If the donors couldn't tolerate her anti-trumpim, why now? Do they blame her for the election results? It literally doesn't matter anymore, so just for spite? It doesn't add up.
Yeah this all seems about right to me.
"Fucking qualia." -Hugh Akston

"Sliced bagels aren't why trump won; it's why it doesn't matter who wins." -dhex
User avatar
Mo
Posts: 25919
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by Mo »

JasonL wrote: 04 Dec 2020, 08:56Current 5thC dances around this a bit at the beginning. They do an odd thing where they act like twitter invented the donor story not Shikha herself.
The ridiculous thing is they’re offended that people are speculating about what happened based on what Shikha said, but have zero problems taking the word of people in organizations they don’t like. So weird how being mean to Bari is cancel culture, but firing someone for their views (that still fit the ideology) is not. And the implication that an EiC of a political, donor supported magazine wouldn’t fire someone because donors are pissed. Come the fuck on. Give me a fucking break. It’s basically, when it happens from people we don’t like to people I like it’s bad, but when people that we like does it it doesn’t count. Like Kevin Williamson didn’t get fired for his views on abortion, he got fired in part because he lied to his boss about the inflammatory way he described his abortion views.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex
User avatar
Warren
Posts: 31030
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by Warren »

Mo wrote: 04 Dec 2020, 10:39
JasonL wrote: 04 Dec 2020, 08:56Current 5thC dances around this a bit at the beginning. They do an odd thing where they act like twitter invented the donor story not Shikha herself.
The ridiculous thing is they’re offended that people are speculating about what happened based on what Shikha said, but have zero problems taking the word of people in organizations they don’t like. So weird how being mean to Bari is cancel culture, but firing someone for their views (that still fit the ideology) is not.
I can't even.
Moynihan's rant addressed those points specifically.

Matt punted saying he had no inside knowledge at all, so it probably would have been better if they had just acknowledged that it was a thing that happened and they don't know anything and moved on.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
User avatar
Mo
Posts: 25919
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by Mo »

JasonL wrote: 04 Dec 2020, 09:06 But, ok. Is that take by Gillespie "trumpy"?

ETA: there is no measure that shows anything other than BHO being the undisputed king of using law enforcement to remove immigrants. I'm not saying this is the only thing to look at in a "who is worst" contest but it's not nothing and it isn't so trivial that simply pointing out things like this makes one unreasonably trumpy.

https://www.cato.org/blog/deportation-r ... erspective
It’s not Trumpy, it’s, at best, lazy and incurious. It’s the Holden Caufield school of political analysis. What would you call someone that say, “sure China is bad with the way they surveil their citizens, but the US surveils their citizens too, so it’s really just as bad here”?

I would also say that there are people that say Obama was not the worst. In some ways CIS has some street cred because they fap to people getting deported, but they also would want to underrate how bad Obama is. That said, the deportee in chief they highlight is ... Bill Clinton.

https://cis.org/Vaughan/Obama-Deportati ... rdBreaking
Last edited by Mo on 04 Dec 2020, 10:57, edited 1 time in total.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex
User avatar
Mo
Posts: 25919
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by Mo »

Warren wrote: 04 Dec 2020, 10:46
Mo wrote: 04 Dec 2020, 10:39
JasonL wrote: 04 Dec 2020, 08:56Current 5thC dances around this a bit at the beginning. They do an odd thing where they act like twitter invented the donor story not Shikha herself.
The ridiculous thing is they’re offended that people are speculating about what happened based on what Shikha said, but have zero problems taking the word of people in organizations they don’t like. So weird how being mean to Bari is cancel culture, but firing someone for their views (that still fit the ideology) is not.
I can't even.
Moynihan's rant addressed those points specifically.

Matt punted saying he had no inside knowledge at all, so it probably would have been better if they had just acknowledged that it was a thing that happened and they don't know anything and moved on.
He addressed it by saying exactly what I said. Which is a bullshit explanation. Is that the attitude they take when other people are canceled? My point is they seem ok taking a one sided view when it’s someone they like against someone they don’t like. But if someone they like is on the other side, the view is, “well we don’t know, let’s move on.”
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex
User avatar
Warren
Posts: 31030
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by Warren »

Mo wrote: 04 Dec 2020, 10:56
Warren wrote: 04 Dec 2020, 10:46
Mo wrote: 04 Dec 2020, 10:39
JasonL wrote: 04 Dec 2020, 08:56Current 5thC dances around this a bit at the beginning. They do an odd thing where they act like twitter invented the donor story not Shikha herself.
The ridiculous thing is they’re offended that people are speculating about what happened based on what Shikha said, but have zero problems taking the word of people in organizations they don’t like. So weird how being mean to Bari is cancel culture, but firing someone for their views (that still fit the ideology) is not.
I can't even.
Moynihan's rant addressed those points specifically.

Matt punted saying he had no inside knowledge at all, so it probably would have been better if they had just acknowledged that it was a thing that happened and they don't know anything and moved on.
He addressed it by saying exactly what I said. Which is a bullshit explanation. Is that the attitude they take when other people are canceled? My point is they seem ok taking a one sided view when it’s someone they like against someone they don’t like. But if someone they like is on the other side, the view is, “well we don’t know, let’s move on.”
Yeah, I see that. But you're ignoring the part about the hostile work environment. There is a difference between your boss saying "You're not working out" and letting you go, and your colleagues creating a hostile work environment claiming they feel "unsafe" being in the same room with you and demanding you be tossed into the street.
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
User avatar
Mo
Posts: 25919
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by Mo »

I guess the question is, has MCM ever complained about defining cancel culture of firing someone for their political views and limited it purely to bullying or is that a brand new definition that was made up for this situation on the fly so that if this is why Shikha was fired Reason would be in the clear, but Bari and Andrew Sullivan were canceled. Back when Andrew Sullivan resigned, he had no problem saying that Andrew was fired (or was pressured to leave) even though he publicly said he resigned and was not pressured to leave.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex
User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 25719
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by JasonL »

It is very relevant that there was in real life a Fire Bari slack inside NYT. Which is bananas.
User avatar
Warren
Posts: 31030
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:03
Location: Goat Rope MO
Contact:

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by Warren »

JasonL wrote: 04 Dec 2020, 11:14 It is very relevant that there was in real life a Fire Bari slack inside NYT. Which is bananas.
And James Bennet. And at what point does the NYT have to come clean on being an advocacy publication and no longer the "paper of record".
THIS SPACE FOR RENT
User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 25719
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by JasonL »

It’s not Trumpy, it’s, at best, lazy and incurious. It’s the Holden Caufield school of political analysis. What would you call someone that say, “sure China is bad with the way they surveil their citizens, but the US surveils their citizens too, so it’s really just as bad here”?
But in this case Obama is China. Objectively. At least in the raw numbers. Is it lazier to point that out or lazier to act like it isn't true so Trump can be worse by default?
User avatar
Mo
Posts: 25919
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by Mo »

JasonL wrote: 04 Dec 2020, 11:19
It’s not Trumpy, it’s, at best, lazy and incurious. It’s the Holden Caufield school of political analysis. What would you call someone that say, “sure China is bad with the way they surveil their citizens, but the US surveils their citizens too, so it’s really just as bad here”?
But in this case Obama is China. Objectively. At least in the raw numbers. Is it lazier to point that out or lazier to act like it isn't true so Trump can be worse by default?
Except other analyses have shown that Obama was playing with the way things were being categorized and tracked so he’d look harsher than he was. E.g Obama was counting people turned away at/near the border that were recent arrivals to make it seem like he was tougher to pass reform. Trump focused more on removing people that were established and living largely law abiding lives, aside from entering illegally. There’s a qualitative difference between the two types of immigration enforcement. Also, instead of tossing people, he had them stay in camps on the Other side of the Mexican border, so they don’t get counted. It’s like you have two bouncers at a bar, if one counts people they toss from inside the bar and one counts the people that he turns away and the people he tosses, even if the latter guy is more lenient, he’ll win the Dalton Cooler Award.

https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-ob ... story.html

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article ... ief-or-not
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex
User avatar
Jennifer
Posts: 26799
Joined: 28 Apr 2010, 14:03

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by Jennifer »

And Trump's child separation policy was (and still is) its own unique evil. Not to mention the appalling treatment camp inmates received -- remember "no toothpaste, no soap, no baths?"
"Myself, despite what they say about libertarians, I think we're actually allowed to pursue options beyond futility or sucking the dicks of the powerful." -- Eric the .5b
User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 19548
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by lunchstealer »

Jadagul wrote: 04 Dec 2020, 00:55
Warren wrote: 04 Dec 2020, 00:48
D.A. Ridgely wrote: 03 Dec 2020, 15:14 Straight journalism is supposed to be objective, so reporters are never supposed to say, never mind how otherwise obvious it is, who they support in an election
I think Reason addresses this whenever they post their staff picks. I find it wanting as well. Objective reporting is a fiction and disclosing personal views doesn't denigrate the reporting. Quite the contrary, it lends it some integrity.
Right, but that's not the rule most news outlets follow. Hence "Reason is one of the only places journalists might acceptably state whom they voted for". It's explicitly against the rules of employment everywhere else!

Yglesias made a comment the other day that now that he's gone independent, he's allowed to actually say out loud that he's glad Trump lost, which was against the rules while he worked at Vox.
I was more surprised that MattY ended up signing on with Niskanen.
"Dude she's the Purdue Pharma of the black pill." - JasonL

"This thread is like a dog park where everyone lets their preconceptions and biases run around and sniff each others butts." - Hugh Akston

"That's just tokenism with extra steps." - Jake
User avatar
JasonL
Posts: 25719
Joined: 05 May 2010, 17:22

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by JasonL »

I think the Obama numbers being manipulated thing is a great deep dive. I haven’t read those articles but that’s fine. My point is Alex Nowrasteh isn’t being trumpy or unreasonable and Cato isn’t somehow doing anything untoward because they presented an argument about literally anyone other than trump.
User avatar
lunchstealer
Posts: 19548
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:25
Location: The Local Fluff in the Local Bubble

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by lunchstealer »

Jennifer wrote: 04 Dec 2020, 12:16 And Trump's child separation policy was (and still is) its own unique evil. Not to mention the appalling treatment camp inmates received -- remember "no toothpaste, no soap, no baths?"
Not quite unique, as Obama tried the same thing including the 'deterrence' line. The difference is that he stopped and called it a mistake, whereas Trump fired White Aryan Avasarala Wannabe from DHS because she didn't have sufficient enthusiasm for the child separation.
"Dude she's the Purdue Pharma of the black pill." - JasonL

"This thread is like a dog park where everyone lets their preconceptions and biases run around and sniff each others butts." - Hugh Akston

"That's just tokenism with extra steps." - Jake
User avatar
Jadagul
Posts: 7844
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 18:51

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by Jadagul »

lunchstealer wrote: 04 Dec 2020, 12:42
Jadagul wrote: 04 Dec 2020, 00:55
Warren wrote: 04 Dec 2020, 00:48
D.A. Ridgely wrote: 03 Dec 2020, 15:14 Straight journalism is supposed to be objective, so reporters are never supposed to say, never mind how otherwise obvious it is, who they support in an election
I think Reason addresses this whenever they post their staff picks. I find it wanting as well. Objective reporting is a fiction and disclosing personal views doesn't denigrate the reporting. Quite the contrary, it lends it some integrity.
Right, but that's not the rule most news outlets follow. Hence "Reason is one of the only places journalists might acceptably state whom they voted for". It's explicitly against the rules of employment everywhere else!

Yglesias made a comment the other day that now that he's gone independent, he's allowed to actually say out loud that he's glad Trump lost, which was against the rules while he worked at Vox.
I was more surprised that MattY ended up signing on with Niskanen.
It makes perfect sense to me. He was part of the Julian Sanchez/Will Wilkinson/I think Dave Weigel poker night back when they were all young bloggers. And while Yglesias is definitely the furthest left of that group he's always been pretty receptive to, like, market-oriented soft-libertarian arguments, which is why the left is continually pissed at him.
User avatar
Mo
Posts: 25919
Joined: 26 Apr 2010, 17:08

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by Mo »

lunchstealer wrote: 04 Dec 2020, 12:57
Jennifer wrote: 04 Dec 2020, 12:16 And Trump's child separation policy was (and still is) its own unique evil. Not to mention the appalling treatment camp inmates received -- remember "no toothpaste, no soap, no baths?"
Not quite unique, as Obama tried the same thing including the 'deterrence' line. The difference is that he stopped and called it a mistake, whereas Trump fired White Aryan Avasarala Wannabe from DHS because she didn't have sufficient enthusiasm for the child separation.
I believe the child separation was also for short periods (24-48 hours vs weeks) and didn’t lose any kids. Not that the original policy was right, but it was different in kind.
his voice is so soothing, but why do conspiracy nuts always sound like Batman and Robin solving one of Riddler's puzzles out loud? - fod

no one ever yells worldstar when a pet gets fucked up - dhex
User avatar
Shem
Posts: 8919
Joined: 27 Apr 2010, 00:27

Re: Reason fires Shikha Dalmia

Post by Shem »

Mo wrote: 04 Dec 2020, 10:56
Warren wrote: 04 Dec 2020, 10:46
Mo wrote: 04 Dec 2020, 10:39
JasonL wrote: 04 Dec 2020, 08:56Current 5thC dances around this a bit at the beginning. They do an odd thing where they act like twitter invented the donor story not Shikha herself.
The ridiculous thing is they’re offended that people are speculating about what happened based on what Shikha said, but have zero problems taking the word of people in organizations they don’t like. So weird how being mean to Bari is cancel culture, but firing someone for their views (that still fit the ideology) is not.
I can't even.
Moynihan's rant addressed those points specifically.

Matt punted saying he had no inside knowledge at all, so it probably would have been better if they had just acknowledged that it was a thing that happened and they don't know anything and moved on.
He addressed it by saying exactly what I said. Which is a bullshit explanation. Is that the attitude they take when other people are canceled? My point is they seem ok taking a one sided view when it’s someone they like against someone they don’t like. But if someone they like is on the other side, the view is, “well we don’t know, let’s move on.”
Which has been the case for almost all the "fight cancel culture" movement, and is why most of the people pushing the "I'm deeply concerned about free expression" line of argument in the media are full of shit. The only reason they care now is because it's people who fit their demographic group who aren't having their "free expression" respected, and it's making them afraid of becoming a target. Meanwhile, if things went back to the previous five decades of "authoritarian conservatives cancel people, leftists stroke their beards and spout Voltaire quotes, and right libertarians defend free expression," they'd go back to not giving a shit. Or, in the case of Weiss, helping to cancel people.
"VOTE SHEMOCRACY! You will only have to do it once!" -Loyalty Officer Aresen
Post Reply