I don’t even understand the economics behind how this works. Am I supposed to go out and buy Haberman’s book to read the exciting document-flushing revelations that are already all over the internet?
It’s not an exaggeration to say the New York Times got Trump elected.
And they have learned absolutely nothing.
Michelle Wolff nailed it so perfectly she all but ended that nauseating circle jerk dinner. Just awful awful people.
2 Likes
They learned that Trump being president makes them money.
1 Like
I don’t think this is controversial. Under/overrepresentation is simply comparing demographics of subgroups against the whole population. Black people are “overrepresented” in the NBA, white people are “overrepresented” in the NHL, and it’s not offensive or racist to say so.
2 Likes
Not many Times bylines decrying the fact that Caucasians are “vividly overrepresented” in Congress or the boardroom.
2 Likes
This was my immediate reaction as well.
Agree the tweet in a vacuum is fine and just a construct of population statistics, but that it also belies how terrible NYT is because there’s will never be a headline about how overrepresented disheveled looking white dudes are in American curling.
1 Like
The problem is that in layman’s terms, the connotation of “overrepresented” is very different than it is to a statistician. So it would probably be better if the journalists found a way to better express the concept in layman’s terms.
Plus this.
Yeah, I agree. I just think this is a bit of a reactive position from the person on Twitter. Uh….what do you mean by “overrepresented”? is kind of a stupid thing to say when it’s transparently obvious exactly what they mean by “overrepresented”. Progressives talk openly and effectively about underrepresentation all the time. This is pointless affected outrage.
6 Likes
Yeah that’s a good point.
Sports betting is going to make watching the Superbowl less enjoyable, quite a take from The Atlantic.
1 Like
It completely depends on the person, but I can see it. When I do NFL DFS on a Sunday - for minimal money, maybe $5-$10 - I’ll catch myself sometimes watching RZ and the games in such a warped manner, especially if close to cashing.
e.g. I’ll focus on the huddle to see if my WR is in on a play, on a pass play I’ll watch only my RB to see if he’s getting open in the flat, I’ll get annoyed if my QB hands off at the goal line, etc
It can definitely make you lose context and enjoyment of the overall game. You focus on just your sweat - which can certainly be fun itself, but is meaningless in the bigger picture.
Isn’t the bigger picture equally as meaningless though? Agree with meaning lying with the individual.
When I realized the game was all about the money for the players, the game became all about the money for me too. I still have a rooting interest, but its not as strong as it used to be.
I promise you, my job selling food to other people is all about the money for me.
4 Likes
A writer from the Atlantic notices the corrosive acidic nature of capitalism that breaks down every human interaction to its financial components but only applies that concern to American football. Great stuff.
4 Likes