Anonymous wrote:For those of you that cancelled your subscription, did you tell them why? I am trying to figure out how.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What? The NYT is deleting comments unfavorable to Kolker and Larson?

The NYT approves any comments before they go live on the site, so they’re not deleting, just gatekeeping. And honestly at this point I believe random anonymous people’s claims in this thread that their critical comments aren’t going thru over believing the NYT is being fair.

Maybe they are reviewing comments and that takes a while, but I feel deep distrust of the NYT right now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kolker's followup just demonstrates what a inveterate sexist he is. I'm never going to read anything of his again.

Same. NYT is good for crossword and cooking at this point

I am out. I hit "cancel subscription" and am now in some kind of chat waiting room to chat with an "advocate".

Lots of comments criticizing Kolker. Good. This is outrageous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New piece by Kolker in NYT addressing the Bad Art Friend:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/20/insider/bad-art-friend-twitter.html?partner=IFTTT

Comments are open. I hope some of the posters here will critique Kolker's narrative stance.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New piece by Kolker in NYT addressing the Bad Art Friend:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/20/insider/bad-art-friend-twitter.html?partner=IFTTT

A completely useless follow up.

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!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New piece by Kolker in NYT addressing the Bad Art Friend:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/20/insider/bad-art-friend-twitter.html?partner=IFTTT

A completely useless follow up.

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!

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone else really depressed by this followup? I’m a reader and an artist and a DCUM-elite-liberal-arts-educated-person (lol) and even my most jaded, cynical, suspicious self is STILL just sad and let down by these mean grub street writers, by the nyt, by kolker, by his editors, all of it.

Me too. I am one of the PP who is a novelist and I can honestly say I had no clue.

For those of you that cancelled your subscription, did you tell them why? I am trying to figure out how.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone else really depressed by this followup? I’m a reader and an artist and a DCUM-elite-liberal-arts-educated-person (lol) and even my most jaded, cynical, suspicious self is STILL just sad and let down by these mean grub street writers, by the nyt, by kolker, by his editors, all of it.

I’m with you. I’m surprised because most of me assumed this would happen, but still - to revisit two weeks later, and stand by his character assassination is shocking me despite my predication. I was hoping my cynicism was unwarranted.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is anyone else really depressed by this followup? I’m a reader and an artist and a DCUM-elite-liberal-arts-educated-person (lol) and even my most jaded, cynical, suspicious self is STILL just sad and let down by these mean grub street writers, by the nyt, by kolker, by his editors, all of it.

I’m with you. I’m surprised because most of me assumed this would happen, but still - to revisit two weeks later, and stand by his character assassination is shocking me despite my predication. I was hoping my cynicism was unwarranted.

I'm very disappointed as well.

Anonymous wrote:Not one of my comments has been posted and they are civilized but call out the writer for not doing a better job investigating. I did cancel my subscription.

Good for you!

gah ^^ prediction.

https://mobile.twitter.com/kidneygate/status/1450815499114319875

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.