Read on Twitter
one more thing and then i& #39;ll stop: i have noticed praise for "mistakes" cropping up in free speech discourse recently. Here it is in the Harper& #39;s letter
i find it telling because it really doesn& #39;t make sense! especially in a mag like Harper& #39;s, with such a well-known accuracy fetish. the reason you read Harper& #39;s is because, ideally, there aren& #39;t mistakes: pieces go through a rigorous editing and fact-checking process
also, a lot of these signatories have high-paid media jobs with more resources to avoid mistakes than the vast majority of journalists! they employ fact-checkers, assistants, and work with editors who devote a lot of time to their pieces
this kind of feels to me like people at the elite levels of this industry are asking to be held to a lower standard: of accuracy, research, curiosity, responsiveness to criticism, and accountability
i don& #39;t want to coddle these people lol. it matters Malcolm Gladwell makes a mistake. it matters if Noam Chomsky makes a mistake! all of JK Rowling& #39;s mistakes have mattered. i can& #39;t wrap my mind around the idea of writing off their fuck-ups as the product of ignorance
this is, once again, about the difference between free speech and who gets to be a public intellectual. love free speech, but everyone with a brain can see that you don& #39;t get to be a public intellectual if you& #39;re insensitive, incurious, lazy, and reactive
we can hold these people to a higher standard! it& #39;s possible! we deserve diverse, curious, empathetic people writing in our magazines, getting funding from our universities, and writing the books we read. im excited for that to happen. end of thread
