Cancel Culture, and Bari Weiss’ Resignation from the NYT, Explained
In 2017, after the inauguration of Donald J. Trump, The New York Times (NYT) realized their reporting was disconnected from their readers. In an attempt to better represent and understand their current consumers, as well as extend their influence beyond their normal base of buyers, they hired several people to help diversify the coverage of the NYT.
One of those people was Bari Weiss, an American writer, and editor, who was hired along with dozens of others, to help diversify the paper. However, she resigned from The New York Times on July 14th of 2020, continuing conversations around the world about cancel culture. Her resignation didn’t go unnoticed and sparked further conversations about this ever-evolving culture of public shaming. Just to give context to some readers, a quick search on Google clarified that “Cancel culture or call-out culture is a modern form of ostracism in which someone is thrust out of social or professional circles – whether it be online, on social media, or in person.”.
In her resignation letter, Weiss stated that she “joined the paper with gratitude and optimism” and that the reason behind her hiring was clear; “The paper’s failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn’t have a firm grasp of the country it covers”. She also brought up ‘cancel culture’ and mentioned that “stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences” rather than presenting the facts of a story, and letting their audience draw their own conclusions. In her opinion, the Times had a clear agenda, that had shared political beliefs of a small group of people, rather than of the country they serve and cover.
Although the idea was there, it seemed that many of her colleagues were not on board with efforts to diversify the paper. Weiss says her co-workers called her a “Nazi and a racist” and editors would “regularly weigh in” on her work. In addition, the former editor says that some colleagues of hers “insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one”, which, in my view, is both incredibly hypocritical, and counterproductive. Weiss continues to hope that such co-workers face consequences, but her faith in that outcome is dwindling. Weiss argued that “Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery” and continues to express her concern and lack of understanding for how a company would allow this kind of behaviour “… in full view of the paper’s entire staff and the public”.
Around halfway through her resignation letter, Weiss states that “online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets”, which is exactly what is so problematic with the now popularized ‘cancel culture’. Cancel culture normalizes discrediting someone based on one or more ‘socially unacceptable’ acts and allows people to deem someone non-inclusive often without explaining why. This normalized practice justifies shoving other thoughts or beliefs aside and has become a danger to many people. It even poses a danger to democracies around the world. This is because if, hypothetically, the ‘yellow party’ in the government disagrees with the ‘green party’, the yellow side could easily ‘cancel’ their opponent and suppress their opinions and ideas. Without diversity in opinion, democracies aren’t able to function properly as many people may not be represented or advocated for through the government.
However, even though many of the fundamental parts of cancel culture are arguably dangerous to democracy, due to the simplicity of how it functions; blame, ostracize, publicize, the very basic idea of it, is quite valid. Calling someone out for not being inclusive is a completely normal practice, which many of us experience in our everyday lives. If someone we know makes a racist comment, we will call them out for it, with no debate. Now, I’d like to make it very clear that I, personally, don’t agree with much of Weiss’s journalistic pieces, and have numerous issues with her newly published podcast called “Honestly”, I do believe that certain points made in her resignation letter are absolutely important, and critical to understanding cancel culture.
In her podcast, she invites guest speakers to converse with her about specific issues, and then linking the source of that issue to several other topics. For example, in her thirteenth episode, called “When American Doctors Are Scared to Tell the Truth” she invites journalist Katie Herzog to discuss the topic of (in their eyes), a new, and harmful approach to medicine. They cite numerous sources and give several examples of (again, in their eyes), how the medical community is becoming more focused on “treating people’s biases rather than their illnesses”. Weiss and Herzog jump from lecture, to article, to study, to personal accounts, all to prove their point. That this new approach to medicine within the medical community is incredibly harmful, and actually link cancel culture to one of these examples.
Around two-thirds of the way through the episode, the two begin to discuss the case of Lisa Littman, an American Physician who, in 2018 noticed an increase in trans-identifying teens in her community, and decided to study it. Now, when the journal got published, she received huge amounts of hate, and the study was later taken down and revised to ‘better fit the narrative’ as Weiss would put it. This would soon be recognized as an ‘infamous’ case of cancel culture regarding ‘transphobia’. Herzog specifically states “There are real consequences to this, you will get smeared as transphobic, smeared as a bigot if you question the narrative”. Now, my issue with that statement specifically, comes from a larger issue in my mind, of the generational divide of understanding regarding cancel culture. Without much evidence to back up her claim that ‘questioning the narrative’ would make you a bigot in the public eye, the two journalists go on to use this statement to continue their conversation, without much to back up such a huge statement. After revisions, the study was republished, but left a mark on society as a trans-related cancel culture situation. Now, I’d like to point out that many examples of cancel culture touch on identity-related topics such as race, class, sexual orientation, gender identity, and others, which can be seen in another viral case regarding the incredibly well-known author, J.K. Rowling.
On Twitter, in June of 2020, J.K. Rowling responded to an article explaining how we can make the world a better place for people who menstruate (screenshot linked below). Rowling tweeted; “ ‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?”. When stating ‘people who menstruate’ in the article, the authors are purposely using terminology that is inclusive of transgender, non-binary, and third-gender individuals. Rowling openly criticizes the use of that phrase by suggesting a word for “those people”, referring solely to women. When the public realized the underlying transphobia of this tweet, people began educating themselves and others as well as calling out similar behavior. After being ‘canceled’, many began criticizing this new culture for not being inclusive of other opinions and ideas.
However, there is a line between bigotry and differing opinions and ideas, which has become vaguer than ever due to this new culture. By ignoring the fact that transgender, non-binary, gender non-conforming, and intersex people menstruate, Rowling is openly discriminating against them, denying and invalidating the reality of a biological function that they experience. By not accepting and invalidating someone simply because they don’t identify with their sex assigned at birth, she is completely excluding people, and not being inclusive. Now, ‘canceling’ someone is dangerous simply because it promotes one set of values, without listening to any other opinion. Not allowing someone to express their views and opinions can be seen as oppression or just not being inclusive, which just makes cancel culture completely counterproductive. But, as I mentioned previously, the roots of cancel culture are quite valid, anad calling people out on inappropriate comments is just a part of daily life, even without social media being involved. However, rather than publicly shaming people online, allow yourself to have an honest conversation with them and explain why their actions may be rude or inappropriate. After all, education is key.
Sources: