What’s the controversy with 1) Maggie Haberman; 2) Nate Silver and 3) Dionne Warwick?

[Anonymous]

I assume they’re unrelated controversies but I’m curious what the background is behind the mixed reactions I see to these 3 on Twitter.

[Anonymous]

Haberman’s mom runs a PR firm that has/has had (not sure which) the Trumps and Kushners as clients, so there’s a perception that she’s pro-Trumps/Kushners.

[Anonymous]

PPl pissed at Nate Silver for acting like a contagious disease epidemiologist and he's not...and did a lot of science wrong.

[Anonymous]

People dislike Dionne Warwick?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Haberman’s mom runs a PR firm that has/has had (not sure which) the Trumps and Kushners as clients, so there’s a perception that she’s pro-Trumps/Kushners.

She’s also about as painfully NYT as it gets and that’s a serious problem in its own right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haberman’s mom runs a PR firm that has/has had (not sure which) the Trumps and Kushners as clients, so there’s a perception that she’s pro-Trumps/Kushners.

She’s also about as painfully NYT as it gets and that’s a serious problem in its own right.

I like her insights/reporting on Trump. I think she gets it right and she's no sycophant when interviewed about him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PPl pissed at Nate Silver for acting like a contagious disease epidemiologist and he's not...and did a lot of science wrong.

Except the contagious disease epidemiologists in question who wrote the report were not acting like all epidemiologists would per se when they recommended not putting elderly folks first in the next phase, which would increase the number of predicted deaths. Looks like the CDC is now recommending they are put first, so those experts seem more in line with the Nate Silver perspective, which seems the more ethical perspective. Questioning experts is called critical thinking. Experts are all operating under various influences and can come to different conclusions. Good for Nate Silver. We need more critical thinking, not less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haberman’s mom runs a PR firm that has/has had (not sure which) the Trumps and Kushners as clients, so there’s a perception that she’s pro-Trumps/Kushners.

She’s also about as painfully NYT as it gets and that’s a serious problem in its own right.

I like her insights/reporting on Trump. I think she gets it right and she's no sycophant when interviewed about him.

This. Feel free to criticize the nepotism that helped her get her job, but the people who think she's pro-Trump are waaaaay off base.

[Anonymous]

I love this thread! I’ve noticed the shade on Twitter against these three lately too and have been puzzled. Re Dionne Warwick, is the allegation that she doesn’t write her own tweets?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PPl pissed at Nate Silver for acting like a contagious disease epidemiologist and he's not...and did a lot of science wrong.

Except the contagious disease epidemiologists in question who wrote the report were not acting like all epidemiologists would per se when they recommended not putting elderly folks first in the next phase, which would increase the number of predicted deaths. Looks like the CDC is now recommending they are put first, so those experts seem more in line with the Nate Silver perspective, which seems the more ethical perspective. Questioning experts is called critical thinking. Experts are all operating under various influences and can come to different conclusions. Good for Nate Silver. We need more critical thinking, not less.

I don’t understand where this line of thinking is coming from? Every recommendation I saw, prior to the CDC weighing in, was frontline health workers first, then the elderly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PPl pissed at Nate Silver for acting like a contagious disease epidemiologist and he's not...and did a lot of science wrong.

Except the contagious disease epidemiologists in question who wrote the report were not acting like all epidemiologists would per se when they recommended not putting elderly folks first in the next phase, which would increase the number of predicted deaths. Looks like the CDC is now recommending they are put first, so those experts seem more in line with the Nate Silver perspective, which seems the more ethical perspective. Questioning experts is called critical thinking. Experts are all operating under various influences and can come to different conclusions. Good for Nate Silver. We need more critical thinking, not less.

I don’t understand where this line of thinking is coming from? Every recommendation I saw, prior to the CDC weighing in, was frontline health workers first, then the elderly.

Frontline health workers are already in line in the first phase, along with nursing home residents. This is for the second step.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PPl pissed at Nate Silver for acting like a contagious disease epidemiologist and he's not...and did a lot of science wrong.

Except the contagious disease epidemiologists in question who wrote the report were not acting like all epidemiologists would per se when they recommended not putting elderly folks first in the next phase, which would increase the number of predicted deaths. Looks like the CDC is now recommending they are put first, so those experts seem more in line with the Nate Silver perspective, which seems the more ethical perspective. Questioning experts is called critical thinking. Experts are all operating under various influences and can come to different conclusions. Good for Nate Silver. We need more critical thinking, not less.

I don’t understand where this line of thinking is coming from? Every recommendation I saw, prior to the CDC weighing in, was frontline health workers first, then the elderly.

Frontline health workers are getting first, as we speak, along with residents in long term care. They were going to prioritize essential workers over people over 74, for the next phase. Now they are going to prioritize people over 74, and a smaller group of the frontline essential workers most at risk of exposure, for the next phase (Phase 1b)

[Anonymous]

The Dionne Warwick controversy might be that she publicly expressed concern about getting the COVID vaccine. I happened to catch Joy Reid's interview of Kamala Harris yesterday and this was mentioned. People are allowed to have their personal reservations about the vaccine, of course. But I think some are frustrated that she used a public platform to express her opinion on that, particularly since she is not a scientist or public health expert. The last thing we need is further distrust of vaccines among the Black community which has been hit hard by COVID-19.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haberman’s mom runs a PR firm that has/has had (not sure which) the Trumps and Kushners as clients, so there’s a perception that she’s pro-Trumps/Kushners.

She’s also about as painfully NYT as it gets and that’s a serious problem in its own right.

I like her insights/reporting on Trump. I think she gets it right and she's no sycophant when interviewed about him.

This. Feel free to criticize the nepotism that helped her get her job, but the people who think she's pro-Trump are waaaaay off base.

She is unbelievably thin-skinned and petulant on social media, beyond defensive is her standard setting. I can’t agree with either of you on the merits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Haberman’s mom runs a PR firm that has/has had (not sure which) the Trumps and Kushners as clients, so there’s a perception that she’s pro-Trumps/Kushners.

She’s also about as painfully NYT as it gets and that’s a serious problem in its own right.

I like her insights/reporting on Trump. I think she gets it right and she's no sycophant when interviewed about him.

This. Feel free to criticize the nepotism that helped her get her job, but the people who think she's pro-Trump are waaaaay off base.

She is unbelievably thin-skinned and petulant on social media, beyond defensive is her standard setting. I can’t agree with either of you on the merits.

Nepotism? Thin-skinned? Petulant? Those are all positives for a NYT career!