A few days after Trump threatened to take away the broadcast license of NBC News (dumb, can’t do it, but still), Times’ social media editor Caspar Milquetoast created a new set of social media guidelines.
• Always treat others with respect on social media. If a reader questions or criticizes your work or social media post, and you would like to respond, be thoughtful. Do not imply that the person hasn’t carefully read your work.
• If the criticism is especially aggressive or inconsiderate, it’s probably best to refrain from responding. We also support the right of our journalists to mute or block people on social media who are threatening or abusive. (But please avoid muting or blocking people for mere criticism of you or your reporting.)
I have a simple question: Is there any fight in these fuckers?
For all the mistakes it still makes, I’ll be a Post subscriber for a long time simply because of “Democracy Dies in Darkness”. That was a powerful signal that the Post recognized that they are in a fight for their lives, that Trump is an existential threat, and they’re going to fight. And it is no exaggeration that Trump is such a threat:
“It’s frankly disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write,” Trump said. “And people should look into it.”
The Times’ social medial policy – as reasonable-seeming as some of it is – is the opposite. They seem to be suffering under the delusion that genteel politesse on the part of their reporters will be taken into account by Trump, Breitbart, Fox and the rest of their enemies. Apparently, they’ve slept through the last couple of decades of politics, since it will only be taken as a sign of weakness and submission.