New Yorker magazine alert thread

Seeing him being put to account in a more rigourous way than you might seen on TV would be interesting

possibly, but i dunno if david remnick going 'have you no decency, sir' for an hour would be what you're looking for

I wonder if it's a UK thing. Combative interviews with horrible people are more the norm here.

well, look at cathy newman's jordan peterson interview for a good example of how that can backfire

The goal should be akin to Errol Morris' "Mr. Death" movie - force a self-obsessed wannabe maestro rife with hubris and cynicism to find refuge with the only people that will pay his thoughts heed, and then let him and his ideas wither in exile.

...did you say this knowing, unmentioned, that he's the star of an upcoming Morris documentary? (I'm not convinced it's a good idea, either, and the TIFF program description for it is the opposite of tempting.)

American Dharma, set to premiere Out of Competition at the Venice Film Festival on Tuesday, September 4, is an in-depth, often combative 95-minute interview with Bannon, structured around the subject’s favourite films, including Twelve O’clock High, Chimes At Midnight and The Bridge On The Review Kwai.

hm

¿?

The Bridge On The Review Kwai

more details, possibly more typos

https://www.screendaily.com/news/venice-qanda-errol-morris-on-his-steve-bannon-documentary-american-dharma/5132177.article

this is otm really

tbh i think the motivation behind nearly every bannon interview since he's left office has been mostly based on ego/wanting to be the guy who finally nails him, which... is not how the far right works

— Ashley Feinberg (@ashleyfeinberg) September 4, 2018

yeah, precisely

Any publicity is good publicity for a POS who's been clinging to the fringes for forever and could die in deserved obscurity if we'd had the good sense to have never acknowledged them in the first place.

xpost I had no idea he was the subject of a Morris doc! I want to hear him hold forth on literally nothing, so ... pass.

I get what Feinberg's saying, but I don't really understand why interviewing is incompatible with "how the far right works", or even what that means

I mean, is it the same as saying "journalism doesn't work any more, forget it"?

That's partly the point I made upthread: a lot of my reporter friends were puzzled about the outrage. The only argument that made headway was when I reminded them that Bannon is hemorrhaging readers and is no longer in the White House.

the trap that a lot of well-meaning people fall into when it comes to debating fascists is assuming that both sides will act in good faith and present their ideas honestly and therefore the fascist will be defeated by facts

that's not how far right discourse works; it's pointless trying to hold them to those standards

the sartre quote about anti-semitism that's been doing the rounds kinda sums it up

“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”

Man Sartre otm

I get that, but why should journalist's only interview people we expect to reply in good faith? I don't think Remnick's that stupid to expect good faith ("Bannon's not going to burst into tears").

I mean, even though he's no longer in the White House, he's been a key influence on one of the most nihilistic and destructive government's of my lifetime - and he's not as smart as he thinks he is. There's a chance, worth risking I think, that he could reveal something (consciously or unconsciously) that's useful. Or put his foot in it in a way that's unhelpful to the right.

(I wouldn't make the same case about Milo or Cernovich)

useful to whom? for what purpose?

I get that, but why should journalist's only interview people we expect to reply in good faith?

that's a good point, when it applies to interviewing people who haven't lived public lives and whose views are relatively unknown.

that doesn't apply to bannon. we know what he thinks. he still lives a very public life. he has plenty of other forums to share his interesting views about how we're already in the midst of world war III with islam. remnick is very unlikely to draw out new information that will somehow be the key to the entire current nightmare. as others have said, remnick and bannon are playing different games.

karl otm

(xpost) I guess - some motivational insight into the way things worked at the White House, of which people were previously unaware?

This is a good point tho

As for "combative" -- yes, I totally believe that an editor who allowed a fact-checker to quit because he was terrified of alt right Twitter knows how to go toe-to-toe.

— Laura Lippman (@LauraMLippman) September 3, 2018

some motivational insight into the way things worked at the White House, of which people were previously unaware?

this is the leakiest white house in history and, again, bannon has no obligation or likely any motivation to offer an accurate account of how things worked during his time there

actually the point of a festival of ideas is for rich jerkoffs to feel cerebral while bigtimers like you rake in money https://t.co/PQAh09j8Z0

— Owen Ellickson (@onlxn) September 4, 2018

there's a lot of things I want to call Malcom Gladwell

there's a difference between a standard interview and a prestige interview, virtually always some level of puff piece even if the subject is repulsive by the nature of the beast.

The only valid argument I can think of for inviting Steve Bannon as a featured guest at some big public conference is if there's like a dermatological panel on the hazards of poor self-care where he just stands there shirtless as experts point out all of the ways your skin can rebel against you.

Just imagine the Sisyphean task of Bannon removing all of his shirts.

lol

David Remnick is no longer the editor of The New Yorker. Twitter is, writes @BretStephensNYT. https://t.co/8vk8DiguQl

— NYT Opinion (@nytopinion) September 4, 2018

gtfo lol

another fine instance of "Twitter" almost always being a dog whistle for "social justice warriors"

(as in, whenever someone blames Twitter for something, and it isn't about nazis, that's what they're blaming)

can twitter take bret stephens' job too? that would be nice.

festivals and conferences are times when a profession gets to restate and redefine who they are, who's in the club, what their focus is, etc. - i'd even argue that is their point, above any actual information that gets shared (who actually ends up reading thru any of those presentations afterwards?)

anyway my point being that remnick appears to not understand what these sorts of fests are for

When the New Yorker Festival started, it was just about the music, maaan. Being with friends out in the woods and discovering new bands. Then came the drugs and the costumes and the wacky flags and shit.

festivals and conferences are times when a profession gets to restate and redefine who they are, who's in the club, what their focus is, etc. - i'd even argue that is their point, above any actual information that gets shared (who actually ends up reading thru any of those presentations afterwards?)

in the future citing ilx will be best practice

lol, this already happens, if you didn't know:

https://books.google.com/books?id=ed9GAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA300&lpg=PA300&dq=president+keyes+i+love+music&source=bl&ots=5DnuAhuli2&sig=DB7JVVtRb3WdkLMY8wl3gf-qCiQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_9cHP_uHKAhWD5BoKHT-5CtgQ6AEIQTAJ#v=onepage&q=president%20keyes%20i%20love%20music&f=false

NYT Business section today calls the NYer Fest "fantasy camp for liberals"

Roger Stone has appeared in the past

the past, where roger stone belongs

I don’t read tons of film reviews so my basis for comparison is limited but my god could anyone be more of a useless bore than Anthony Lane?

Like where does he get off using all these fucking similes in a 700 word movie review

P.G. Wodehouse wannabe

is there a way to download the audio of the magazine articles onto my phone? I can’t figure out a way to downlod the audio from the NYer app, and apparently I have to pay to use audim

This was really good.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/29/the-myth-of-whiteness-in-classical-sculpture/amp?__twitter_impression=true

There was an interesting article about color and sculpture in the NY Review also a few months ago:

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/07/19/sculpture-bodies-spitting-image/

I think Patricia Marx has justified her whole shtick with the robot piece in 11/26

If they offered a subscription with just archival issues every week, I would sign up.z

it would be awesome to be able to access the archives without using that lame viewer