Skip to content, or skip to search.

Skip to content, or skip to search.

Comments: Week of September 19, 2016


1. Gabriel Sherman began reporting his cover story on the fall of Fox News chief Roger Ailes minutes after the public revelation that anchor Gretchen Carlson had filed a lawsuit against Ailes (“The Revenge of Roger’s Angels,” September 5–18). Three days after Carlson’s suit, Sherman broke the story of six other women who had similar tales of harassment and intimidation at the hands of Ailes. Over the next two months, he would uncover Megyn Kelly’s harassment and role in encouraging other women to come forward; a former employee who alleged she was coerced into continuing a relationship with Ailes and paid off with a $3 million settlement; as well as a larger pattern of surveillance, paranoia, and hush money, shocking even some inside Fox News — eventually, Sherman also broke the news that the Murdochs had decided to remove him. “The man we knew as the blustering genius who invented our mighty Fox News Channel is a deceitful, selfish misogynist, if the charges against him are true,” wrote Fox News’ Geraldo Rivera, who had initially publicly supported Ailes. “Ailes’ personal Inspector Javert, Gabriel Sherman, the New York Magazine writer I have called a ‘nerd with a grudge,’ deserves my apology. He is on the right side of history.” Margaret Sullivan wrote in the Washington Post: “Journalists are highly competitive, but every once in a while, a reporter is so far out ahead on a continuing story that all the rest of us can do is acknowledge the obvious. So it has been with New York magazine’s Gabriel Sherman and the fast-moving story of the sexual harassment claims against the now-deposed head of Fox News, Roger Ailes.” “Tip of the hat to Gabriel Sherman,” tweeted CNN’s Brian Stelter. “He was alone & out front on this story.” Jonathan Martin of the New York Times saw parallels between Ailes and another powerful media figure: “Understanding how Donald Trump became the Republican presidential nominee requires understanding how Fox News and its former chief blurred the lines between practice of news and business of politics — much like Mr. Ailes’s friend and new (unofficial) client: Mr. Trump.”


2. “The life span of a city is measured in centuries, and New York, which is approaching its fifth, probably doesn’t have another five to go, at least in any presently recognizable form,” wrote Andrew Rice in his story on the inevitability of the city’s ending up partially submerged (“This Is New York in the Not-So-Distant Future,” September 5–18). Commenters wrote with both expressions of fear and potential solutions. “New York should culturally lead the world toward full-on decarbonization,” wrote commenter RMReiss2. “It’s a big step to grapple with (less flying, less material and energy use), but it’s easier in NYC than elsewhere. And as the world’s primary financial center, NYC has enormous influence, which in turn benefits everyone around the world if we use our influence well.” “The real problem with all this talk about what is coming,” wrote commenter bareshark1975, “is that we’re so paralyzed by what we see coming we subconsciously (or consciously) assume there is nothing we can do to change the equation. My take is this: We’ve still got time to head off some of the worst scenarios, but we’ve let things go too far. There are going to be consequences that there will be no getting around.” Actress Zoe Kazan felt there was at least one simple and helpful step we can take. “Vote for the candidate who believes global warming is real,” she tweeted. “It’s the least we can do. And actually might be the most we can muster, if indeed ‘the tendency to procrastinate is one constant in the sea-level equation.’ ” The Trace’s Alex Yablon had a different solution. “Read this by Andrew Rice,” he tweeted, “and consider moving to a neighborhood with ‘Hill’ or ‘Heights’ in the name.”

3. Reeves Wiedeman wrote about Sandy Hook “truthers” — a group of internet conspiracy theorists who believe that the Newtown massacre was staged by the government in a ploy to take away people’s guns and liberty (“The Sandy Hook Hoax,” September 5–18). Some readers attempted to make sense of the conspiracy theorists’ callous attack on grieving families. “It’s a heartbreaking story,” tweeted @ zhandlen, “but what’s fascinating to me is how conspiracy theorists illuminate something fundamental about our brains. We’re designed to recognize patterns, and we’re inclined to recognize those patterns which let us believe what we want to believe.” “Absolutely,” responded @Jarathen. “Hoaxing seems to be a shortcut some minds take to try and make sense of the inherent tragic chaos of existence.” Some users felt that the truthers exemplified the danger of the internet. “This is definitely one of the scarier aspects of a connected world,” tweeted @piercegradone. “Fringe ideas can be easily amplified and shared.” “Stories like this make me wonder if the internet is the worst thing to ever happen,” wrote @TimLeMule. Most others just responded with disgust. “The first paragraph of this story felt like a punch to my gut,” tweeted the New York Post’s Bart Hubbuch. “This story broke my heart & made me seriously question my faith in humanity, which is to say good job Reeves Wiedeman,” tweeted the Ringer’s Lindsay Zoladz. “Of all the terrible people on the net — and there’s a seemingly endless variety,” tweeted Washington Free Beacon’s Sonny Bunch, “the Sandy Hook Truthers are the worst.”


Related: