For New York’s latest cover story, Allie Conti charted the difficulties of adopting a dog during the pandemic. Writer Lindsey Adler called the article “very wild and I can personally attest that everything about dog culture in New York is deeply psychotic.” Rolling Stone’s Amy X. Wang posted a picture of her pandemic adoptee with the cover, writing that the animal “got a crazy number of applications because 3-legged dogs are ‘coveted for virtue-signaling’ (?!!) in NYC.” Other readers criticized the piece for advancing “the lie that there aren’t enough adoptable dogs to go around,” as film critic Noah Gittell put it, noting that the New York branch of Animal Care and Control euthanizes many dogs every year “because no one wanted them.” On Twitter, @nicolemhill added, “I understand this is today’s It article, but it devotes a single sentence to a vague reference of the South having more dogs in need of rescue. The rescue dog may be a ‘luxury good’ in New York, but our Texas shelters are overflowing. All the time.”
Also in the issue, Amelia Schonbek explored a form of restorative justice in which victims speak directly to unrelated abusers. “I have written numerous stories about this form of restorative dialogue. I am in awe of @ameliaschonbek’s deep and nuanced take on it,” tweeted crime reporter Mark Obbie. @waverly_sm added, “I spent the back half of 2017 waiting for anyone to tell me where the bad men were supposed to go, other than ‘away forever,’ which is not an answer. Exhausting that we’re only getting to the question four years on, but at least we’re getting to it.” Dr. Heather Strang, a criminology professor at the University of Cambridge, wrote that “with widespread agreement about the failure of arrest and prosecution, now more than ever is the time to consider alternative approaches. Strong empirical evidence supports the use of restorative justice in serious violent non-domestic crime: victims overwhelmingly benefit from the repair of material and emotional harm they have suffered while most offenders reduce future offending.”
Kerry Howley profiled Daniel Hale, a former Air Force intelligence analyst nicknamed the “Second Snowden” for leaking classified documents about drone warfare. William Neuheisel of ExposeFacts called it a “beautiful and devastating profile” that “captured some things that had been haunting me about this story, but that I hadn’t yet processed despite being immersed in it for years.” @WRITEHUNTER said it was “an absolutely incredible article about the United States’ drone program, the psychological and social trauma it causes, and the man who revealed its horrors to the public.” The story prompted@ChipGibbons89 to ask, “Is this what we want as a society, for the most conscientious people in our government to be imprisoned (or driven into exile like Snowden)?” Edward Snowden himself tweeted it was “very much worth reading” and noted that “Daniel Hale did a brave and important thing for the United States, and what is being done to him in response is a national disgrace.” Hale was sentenced to 45 months in prison on July 27.
Alex Shephard wrote about the publishing industry’s lasting investment in literature about the 45th president. Variety critic Daniel D’Addario wrote, “This very good piece on how books like Michael Wolff’s provide an endless, purposeless rehash of the last four years is an intriguing match with a publication whose most recent cover story was … an excerpt from Michael Wolff’s new book.” @CollectBooksNow pointed out that “yes, publishers are happy about bestselling Trump exposés. But editors & others are SO over these books sucking up all the oxygen — when will we finally stop talking about this guy?” On nymag.com, hperkins commented, “If publishers are ‘sick of him,’ which so many of the rest of us are, here’s a novel idea — STOP ENABLING HIM.” Reader DRF55 countered, “While the accumulation of anecdotes of Trump’s behavior may be wearying, I, for one, appreciate that all of these books help to fill in the historical record of a President who was, to an unprecedented degree, ignorant, venal, mentally unstable, dishonest, incompetent, corrupt and possibly treasonous.”