"To meaningfully acknowledge the political threat that many journalists face worldwide, or to name the violence and economic insecurity that disproportionately affect certain groups working in media, would require conceding that critical tweets are not censorship. But the passively worded Harper’s statement is damaging in large part because of the issues it doesn’t name..."
An excellent counterpoint with many good points of which this is just one.
Honestly I think this argument is a bit facetious. I'm enjoying reading these critiques but I think this and the Lithub piece that you also posted get two main things wrong:
There's no confusion in the Harper's letter between infringement of constitutional free speech and oppressive cultural orthodoxy, both are bad. I've re-read it over and over again because I keep feeling like I must be missing something. Also, no one is saying that "critical tweets" equate to censorship.
This is not just about who's getting published in what publications. Again, I don't think this is something that is confused in the Harper's letter. I think the extent of the navel gazing going on here with respect to newspapers and magazines is kind of crazy.
I think it's really hard to have a conversation about this topic when one group of people see a toxic trend of "cancel culture" and another does not. I agree with many of the points that were brought up in this article and the Lithub one but I feel like the authors of those pieces are failing to address what I perceive as the main issue of the Harper's letter because they just don't agree that it exists.
If I could recommend one piece it would be the transcript of "Canceling" by Natalie Wynn. I know it's a crazy long read, but I link to her YouTube version in my comment. In her piece she describes the tropes of canceling in great detail, both in the case of James Charles (a fellow YouTuber) and in her own experience of being cancelled.
In Natalie's case she was relentlessly harassed online because she cast Buck Angel to voice a 10 second John Waters quote in a video essay that was well over an hour long. It is instances like these that I see the Harper's letter as condemning.
"To meaningfully acknowledge the political threat that many journalists face worldwide, or to name the violence and economic insecurity that disproportionately affect certain groups working in media, would require conceding that critical tweets are not censorship. But the passively worded Harper’s statement is damaging in large part because of the issues it doesn’t name..."
An excellent counterpoint with many good points of which this is just one.
Honestly I think this argument is a bit facetious. I'm enjoying reading these critiques but I think this and the Lithub piece that you also posted get two main things wrong:
There's no confusion in the Harper's letter between infringement of constitutional free speech and oppressive cultural orthodoxy, both are bad. I've re-read it over and over again because I keep feeling like I must be missing something. Also, no one is saying that "critical tweets" equate to censorship.
This is not just about who's getting published in what publications. Again, I don't think this is something that is confused in the Harper's letter. I think the extent of the navel gazing going on here with respect to newspapers and magazines is kind of crazy.
I think it's really hard to have a conversation about this topic when one group of people see a toxic trend of "cancel culture" and another does not. I agree with many of the points that were brought up in this article and the Lithub one but I feel like the authors of those pieces are failing to address what I perceive as the main issue of the Harper's letter because they just don't agree that it exists.
If I could recommend one piece it would be the transcript of "Canceling" by Natalie Wynn. I know it's a crazy long read, but I link to her YouTube version in my comment. In her piece she describes the tropes of canceling in great detail, both in the case of James Charles (a fellow YouTuber) and in her own experience of being cancelled.
In Natalie's case she was relentlessly harassed online because she cast Buck Angel to voice a 10 second John Waters quote in a video essay that was well over an hour long. It is instances like these that I see the Harper's letter as condemning.