|
The NYT is not approving comments that disagree with Kolker.
And yes, it's deeply disappointing. They are focusing on preservation of the ego of a sexist writer over accuracy. |
|
gah ^^ prediction.
https://mobile.twitter.com/kidneygate/status/1450815499114319875 |
Good for you! |
I'm very disappointed as well. |
That's really it. He joined in the attack and, like Ng, won't back down. The casual unwarranted cruelty in an attempt to destroy a single, good person is horrifying. It could have been anyone. |
|
Man. Kolker really is a sexist jerk. He ignores the workplace harassment issues entirely. I feel kind of dirty for having read his prior work involving sexual misconduct. What women did exploit for his own game in that?
And the NYT blocking comments that ask critical questions? Unforgivable. |
| For those of you that cancelled your subscription, did you tell them why? I am trying to figure out how. |
Me too. I am one of the PP who is a novelist and I can honestly say I had no clue. |
What a weak and steaming pile of crap. More misogyny. He writes, "While many readers appreciated the story’s perspective shifts and came away understanding both people well, others found themselves identifying emotionally with one side — and getting mad." More effing gaslighting. Now the readers are the crazy hysterical ones "getting mad". Kolker, if you "spent months poring over court documents", why did you misrepresent the timeline. I am super done with the NYT now. And I have subscribed for 15 years! |
Pours over court documents, doesn’t mention anything relevant from them! |
I just did. Here is what I posted, let's see if it gets "approved". I am so disappointed in the NYT. Seriously thinking about cancelling my subscription right now and letting them know why. I thought I could count on them! But no, I guess I'm the emotional and hysterical one. So insulting! My response in the comments: This is a weak and insulting response and I am deeply disappointed in the NYT. If Kolker spent months poring over the court documents then why did he misrepresent the timeline? Also this gaslighting and and lame "both sides" response to readers, "While many readers appreciated the story’s perspective shifts and came away understanding both people well, others found themselves identifying emotionally with one side — and getting mad." So now, it's not just two crazy hysterical women with their "small quarrel" it's the readers who are crazy and hysterical and "getting mad"? "Identifying emotionally?" So condescending. I am very disappointed in the NYT for allowing this poor and inaccurate characterization of the events and timeline which harms the perception of kidney donation, (my friend who is a kidney donor here in Colorado said, "will people think I want attention?"). This defensive response by Kolker is just pathetic and the NYT is lessened by allowing it. I've been a subscriber and defender for 15 years but I am really disgusted. |
| Lots of comments criticizing Kolker. Good. This is outrageous. |
I am out. I hit "cancel subscription" and am now in some kind of chat waiting room to chat with an "advocate". |
Maybe they are reviewing comments and that takes a while, but I feel deep distrust of the NYT right now. |
When you go to cancel, you can chat with an advocate. You can tell them why. I am engaged in the chat with them right now. |