The New Yorker dropped Bannon after John Mulaney, Judd Apatow, Jack Antonoff, and Jim Carrey all dropped out. And according to the editor David Remnick, "even New Yorker staff members had expressed discomfort" at including Bannon. Remnick also said, "The reaction on social media was critical and a lot of the dismay and anger was directed at me and my decision to engage him."
Jeez, the editor of The New Yorker is sensitive to "dismay and anger" that's directed at him personally? Stand up to it! "I don’t want well-meaning readers and staff members to think that I’ve ignored their concerns." What about the concerns of your readers who now think you're cowardly and lame? I'm a long-time subscriber to The New Yorker, and I think you're lame.
I think you've ignored my concerns, and I'd like to think your magazine challenges readers and isn't just about paying attention to our "concerns."
Bannon's response is, of course, much more appealing:
“The reason for my acceptance was simple: I would be facing one of the most fearless journalists of his generation,” Mr. Bannon said in a statement to The New York Times. “In what I would call a defining moment, David Remnick showed he was gutless when confronted by the howling online mob.”Remnick walked right into that.
ALSO: The article quotes Mulaney: "I’m out. I genuinely support public intellectual debate, and have paid to see people speak with whom I strongly disagree. But this isn’t James Baldwin vs William F Buckley.” And Antonoff: “respectfully that’s a full no for me and normalization of white supremacy.”
By the way, who are John Mulaney and Jack Antonoff? I think I might be familiar with Antonoff as the ex-boyfriend of Lena Dunham. Ah, yes:
Antonoff and Dunham remained together until January 2018, with representatives of both announcing their separation as "amicable".IN THE COMMENTS: mccullough said:
In June 2014, Antonoff said he was "desperate" for kids, explaining:
It just seems like the most fun thing in the world. I've never met people who have kids who haven't looked me in the eye and been like, "It's the greatest thing that's ever happened." ... I think it's biological. I'm 30. I'm not that young, right? I'm not, like, 24 or 22. I'm no longer in the phase of my life where I talk about everything as in the future. Like, I'm in the future.
Remnick was an idiot to invite Bannon in the first place. He was a fool if he didn’t know this all would happen.Was Remnick an idiot? For one brief shining moment he believed that The New Yorker audience wants breadth and challenge. And some of us really do. But I guess he was an idiot not to see the game several moves ahead. Now, here he is, in the future, looking narrow and weak.
Posts
69 comments:
Why do people keep offering people like Milo, Coulter and Bannon speaking opportunities knowing they'll surrender to the heckler's veto?
Not to start by hijacking but WTF is the attraction to these freak show panel discussions? Four comedians and Steve Bannon?
The New Yorker’s journalists will also interview the actors Jim Carrey, Emily Blunt and Maggie Gyllenhaal and other cultural heavyweights, including the writers Haruki Murakami and Zadie Smith...
...Other guests include the actor John Krasinski...John didn't make the cultural heavyweights dais I see...ah but Emily Blunt has her own breakout session. Now I get why he showed up...
What about the concerns of your readers who now think you're cowardly and lame? I'm a long-time subscriber to The New Yorker, and I think you're lame
Cowardly and lame, yes...but have you seen Emily Blunt? I wouldn't risk offending her either.
Remnick was an idiot to invite Bannon in the first place. He was a fool if he didn’t know this all would happen.
The Left are whiny children who want to stay in their ignorant bubbles.
So the business model of the New Yorker has to be to accommodate them. Flatter them. Make them think they are sophisticated and smart.
The New Yotker should fire Remnick immediately.
He was a fool if he didn’t know this all would happen.
If you're Remnick don't you invite Bannon because you know this all would happen?
No. Remnick just pissed off the Left’s Sheep by inviting Bannon in the first place. He has brought disgrace upon the New Yorker. Disinviting Bannon doesn’t change that. You can’t put the shit back into the horse.
Remnick should be fired and replaced with an editor who understands the sensibilities of New Yorker readers.
Gutless wonders. A description from an earlier generation, but apt. You can see it coming, can't you Althouse?
Self-affirmation is a crucial element in a crumbling world.
What a bunch of cowardly babies! They are afraid to debate ideas.
The New Yorker has had a Trump Bump of increased subscriptions in the past few years. These people want comfort. They don’t want to be challenged. Remnick is out of touch. He should be canned. Give the job to a millennial.
You invite the whingey leftie comedians and Steve Bannon to give the whingey leftie comedians a platform to whinge about Steve Bannon. You know the whingey leftie comedians won't show up...okay you didn't know Jim Carey would still show up- poor planning there on your part, now you uninvite Bannon, then drink free and dine out on the experience until after the midterms.
And you get Emily Blunt (mostly) to yourself.
At this point it's naive to believe they are striving to practice journalism.
The New Yorker’s journalists will also interview the actors Jim Carrey, Emily Blunt and Maggie Gyllenhaal and other cultural heavyweights, including the writers Haruki Murakami and Zadie Smith...
It's pseudointellectual crap. They're trying to appeal to upper-middle-class over-credentialed white people who want to feel smugly superior to the rubes in flyover country.
It’s a business. Remnick can’t offend his wealthy white audience by having a wealthy white nationalist at The Festival.
These people voted for Obama. They are in tears every day because Trump is president. Remnick is a fool. Out of touch.
I don't actually have the stomach for the schadenfraude.
It is terrifying to see them working up the mob, smearing with false accusations of racism and anti-semitism.
Does anyone believe this sort of thing doesn't end in official censorship, repression, purges, incarceration for incorrect thoughts, and worse?
Surely instead of just repeating "white nationalist," "right-wing populist," and "hated by progressives," we could have some talk about what people actually believe. There is a consensus in Western countries--mainly intellectuals and global capitalists--that open borders will do far more good than harm, and trade agreements should maximize international trade rather than benefit local economies. For progressives, who a few years ago were in "Occupy Wall Street" protests, the strange agreement with global capitalism has to do with universal humanitarianism, bringing about a world where there is no "us" and "them." In conjunction with environmentalism, which global capitalists can certainly figure out how to make money from, the idea seems to be that there will be a new citizen of the world, accepting of, if not feeling love toward, a diversity of perspectives, especially those of groups who were previously victims. (The planet was of course previously a victim). There seems to be a consensus that we've heard about enough of the white male perspective, so there is a strong preference for (so to speak) every other perspective. Sarah Jeong has said that intersectionality means white women can speak for everyone else. (Cindy and Meghan McCain may be examples). Bannon thinks the only effective, non-crazy resistance to the progressive consensus comes from nationalist/populist movements. Insofar as these movements include racists, Bannon doesn't agree with the racists. Am I right?
For one brief shining moment he believed that The New Yorker audience wants breadth and challenge
They don't see it as caving or a failure to challenge. Bannon et al are 'othered' so bad they are not worthy of discussion or acknowledgment.
Sure they'd debate some dead conservative if they could...
Buckley: Listen to me you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I'll sock you in the goddamn face and you'll stay plastered.
Mullaney: I'm not gay....Really, I'm not. Really.
I long to attend cultural heavyweight Emily Blunt's breakout session...
I can check out her ass like BC checks out AG
If the NYer invited Bannon for the publicity, caving must have been pre-planned for even more publicity. Still lame and spineless.
Someone at the festival should ask Emily Blunt why she agreed to act in that dopey movie The Girl on the Train.
That movie was worse than anything that Steve Bannon has done.
"Don't normalize Trump". Make everyone who helped Trump a pariah or worse.
These are still the rules.
I dropped my NYer subscription after more than 20 years because it became just another publication dominated by TDS, even the cartoons. I can still catch the occasional worthwhile article online without having to wade through all the Salon-level silliness. And it's not because I don't want to be exposed to alternative ideas. I'm overexposed already via the NYT and other media. The NYer just became dull and expendable.
Some people see cognitive dissonance everywhere and others don't see it at all.
We call the former white supremacists.
So the rules are: Conservatives do not have to listen or invite progressives to their gatherings, but if the New Yorker stupidly invites and then disinvites Bannon, it demonstrates that progressives don't care about free exchange of ideas.
I thought the establishment just spent the last week moaning and crying that bipartisanship was dead.
Now this week back to our regular fare of attacking non-progressives.
I guess they were mourning the loss of one sided bipartisanship by the GOPe. Good riddance.
I'd also love to ask one of these "progressives" to support the claim that Bannon is a "white supremacist" with specific, full context statements of his.
If Bannon is evil, why didn't they all stay and fight the evil? What about "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."? Isn't dropping out of a debate the same as "doing nothing"?
It's more like kindergarten, they're afraid they'll get cooties from being in the same room as Bannon.
Freder Frederson,
Yes, we conservatives shut out all Hollywood, sports media coverage, university professors, and MSM reporting.
Plus, all the SJW comics and books.
What do you imagine we have left?
I see Remnick as Norma Desmond, responding to Ann, "I am narrow and weak! It's the social media that got strong."
What a bunch of wimpy jackasses.
Journalists should only interview those with whom they already agree.
You should connect the New Yorker holding a Festival of Ideas to your recent thoughts on masturbation. Is there a more masturbatory event than a New Yorker Festival of Ideas?
Steve Bannon once said that Breitbart was the platform for the alt-right. Of course, that was before the MSM redefined alt-right from the original, alternative to mainstream conservatism to the new, white nationalist.* But Bannon is definitely a racist because we couldn't possibly be completely uninformed about the people we hate.
*It should be noted that the MSM has succeeded in redefining alt-right, but I would say they won that battle but lost the war: Trump is nothing if not (by the original definition) alt-right.
David Remnick isn't an idiot, he's just the typical liberal pencil neck Ivy League coward.
John Mulaney is a comedian with a number of stand-up performances on Netflix. He's very funny and not very political. His withdrawal is disappointing, as though fame is turning him in to just another brainless Hollywood dumb-ass.
Conservatives do not have to listen or invite progressives to their gatherings
Nah. I invite every Lefty I can identify to fancy dress parties on my ship.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CQryGyjR88
I think it’s mean to imply that Lena Dunham didn’t want kids. She just doesn’t want his kids. She wants Barack babies.
Nah. I invite every Lefty I can identify to fancy dress parties on my ship.
Cool. On my plantation my guests and I sip mint julips on the veranda while watching the darkies pick cotton and sing Negro spirituals. It's very entertaining.
What about a Steve Bannon Hologram?
"Jeez, the editor of The New Yorker is sensitive to "dismay and anger" that's directed at him personally? Stand up to it!"
OK, I appreciate your indignation and exhortation, but it's a little late for all that. Progs don't care about you. They don't care about your values and sensitivities. They are just not into you.
"What about the concerns of your readers who now think you're cowardly and lame? I'm a long-time subscriber to The New Yorker, and I think you're lame."
OK, fine, but they don't care. If they worried about their business model, and about the votes of moderates, they might pay attention. But they worry about getting the politics and the ideological displays right. At some point, you're gonna have to choose: do you still want to be associated, even if only by subscription, or by the occasional vote, with people who want to destroy what is left of the culture you like?
"But I guess he was an idiot not to see the game several moves ahead. Now, here he is, in the future, looking narrow and weak."
Sure, he may have misjudged the reaction, but he hardly looks weak. He did the right thing. He is a prog hero who saw the light. He caved quickly and completely, affirming prog hegemony. Nothing "narrow" about it. They don't give a damn about people who might perceive idiocy. Our perceptions are entirely alien to them--as the comments about Bannon show.
Freder Frederson, no one on our side criticizes Nutroots Nation for not inviting conservatives. They are at least honest about wanting to stay in their bubble.
Also, I somewhat doubt that Judd Apatow, Jim Carrey and the other SJWs would want to appear with William “Jim Crow is okay “ Buckley.
Imagine if the feller - in a second even briefer shining moment - had put the metal to the floor and in a fit of whimsy called up Roseanne when J Carrey, Duke of Something or Other, dropped out, all sniffingly.
And then imagine if the feller defended it by saying that it was better to have less white guys up there. Or at least less white guys who have spoken out of their rectum onscreen.
Would it be fair to say that Roseanne has had a more substantive cultural following over the last 2/3 years than Mr Carrey? Yes, I mean, I know Roseanne has shown herself to be a little torn n frayed, if not downright living in less than always sane la-la-land.
But imagine being the guy who decided to say: we can do this, guys. We can invite in some of these Deplorables and educate them AND THE WORLD that their ideas are retrograde to humanity's progress. We're better than this. We don't need to masturbate how good and smart we are to ourselves. We can take the argument forward into the dark and show the ignorant that this is the Way.
I've finally figured out how this game works.
Suppose you have four positions.
Far Right.
Right
Left
Far Left.
You amplify the voices on the far left. You silence the voices on the far right.
This makes the Right appear the opposite to far left and the left becomes moderate.
Just a good example of the "Peter Princiaple" David Remnick was, and I suspect still is. a reliably good writer. He targets interesting subjects, has a pretty level gaze and is efficient in his prose. Sometimes I've been moved to his point of view, sometimes not, but he's usually worth the read.
Editor - now that's quite a different skillset. This was a big botch for sure. Probably deserves another at bat or two though. And, in truth, for a leftist middlebrow publication, who else have you got that might be better?
I think it’s mean to imply that Lena Dunham didn’t want kids. She just doesn’t want his kids.
Well, she chose to have a hysterectomy, so that would be an indication that it wasn't just him.
@DBP:
"Steve Bannon once said that Breitbart was the platform for the alt-right. Of course, that was before the MSM redefined alt-right from the original, alternative to mainstream conservatism to the new, white nationalist.* But Bannon is definitely a racist because we couldn't possibly be completely uninformed about the people we hate.
*It should be noted that the MSM has succeeded in redefining alt-right, but I would say they won that battle but lost the war: Trump is nothing if not (by the original definition) alt-right."
Indeed. Bannon is no racist. It is time to fight back, hard, against these pernicious accusations. Until we firmly stand up to this sort of abuse, we are falling into realtime fascism. No less moderate a voice as Victor Davis Hanson has written today that we are already living under a fascistic regime of saturated, weaponized identity politics.
I just finished Mark Puls book on Samuel Adams. Had the town fathers of Boston had the same aversion to debate that The New Yorker and the rest of the "resistance" has we would still be singing "God Save the Queen" and Sam would have spent a lot of time in the stocks.. Because there is not a lot of original source material from Sam Adams - he destroyed most of his papers - the book feels a bit of a light weight, but, all in all, it gives a good picture of how Adams and a few others created the philosophy and, more importantly, the organization that served as the foundation of the American Revolution. It's a pretty quick read, but it answers a lot of questions about the mechanics of how the Colonies were actually able to unite to throw out the Brits. Sam has been overshadowed by cousin John and the other Founders, but he is the key to what happened in 1775 and 1776.
Democrat party members are nothing if not gutless chickenshits. Dirty sneaking lying backstabbing mob-massing cowards. Anyone who votes for Democrat party members or supports the democrat party ought to have their heads smashed in.
Mr Remnick has spent the last two years hammering Trump on nearly every cover and page of the NYer. What made him think he could do anything remotely evenhanded? Thank God for Anthony Lane and the few good pieces that get through.
Mary Beth said...
"It's more like kindergarten, they're afraid they'll get cooties from being in the same room as Bannon."
With good reason. The Fascist Left needs a constant supply of victims for its ongoing Reign of Terror. Any least infraction can lead to an accusation, and to be accused is to be found guilty.
John Mulaney is a comedian. He does stand up on, writes, and recently had a hit stage show (Broadway, I guess) with Nick Kroll. He's a funny guy...but it is odd that his decision not to attend, as a comedian, is what supposedly kicked off the movement to disinvite Bannon.
Anyway nothing in this episode changes my views about anyone involved (other than to think it's too bad that I have to know/consider Mulaney's political affiliation now).
"The New Yorker has had a Trump Bump of increased subscriptions in the past few years. These people want comfort."
They can eat their comfort food holding their comfort animals while wearing comfort shoes with their comfort blankets at the Comfort Inn. Where they can meet their comfort girl promising creature comforts.
I once labeled Vanity Fair as "Tiger Beat for people with advanced degrees."
New Yorker, then, is National Lampoon for people with no real sense of humor.
Antonoff and Dunham remained together until January 2018, with representatives of both announcing their separation as "amicable".
In June 2014, Antonoff said he was "desperate" for kids
--
Even n.n. can quietly nod in approval of this bullet-dodging.
From the links posted at Althouse at least, The New Yorker has been pretty sketchy for some time.
Why do they keep inviting them knowing they will be forced to withdraw the invitations? The explanation might be quite simple- they think the inevitable dis-invitation lowers the status of people like Milo and Bannon.
Put another way- Bannon had to be invited before he could be dis-invited.
Trust me, remnick mortified by this debacle.
Too bad Remnick can no longer explain himself to Charlie Rose and Matt Lauer.
He's not an idiot for inviting Bannon. He's an idiot for not being prepared to handle the inevitable blowback.
Is Bannon a color supremacist or an American nationalist?
Antonoff said he was "desperate" for kids, explaining:
It just seems like the most fun thing in the world.
Can anyone be more selfish and stupid than that? And his participation is important to New Yorker. About time to dump that self-righteous leftist propagandist rag.
Thinking kids fun to have does not seem to go anywhere on ideological spectrum.
You amplify the voices on the far left. You silence the voices on the far right.
Google the wikipedia article on the Overton Window.
this sucks because Bannon is interesting and complicated as fuck and the tools who shut him down are ignorant peons by comparison who only know how to make money by appealing to punters crave for banal sentiment
"New Yorker Festival Pulls Steve Bannon as Headliner Following High-Profile Dropouts"
That headline can be read at least two ways...
Should be "Comedians incredulous getting cantankerous".
One cannot help but think that the festival was much improved by John Mulaney, Judd Apatow, Jack Antonoff, and Jim Carrey dropping out.
"Thinking kids fun to have does not seem to go anywhere on ideological spectrum."
It is I think a flippant-ironic way of saying something that is much more fundamental but much less socially acceptable. In a society in its decadence it is better to present oneself as shallow. Clowns survive better than philosophers.
Post a Comment