Will it be a good case study because it might expose "cancel culture" as non-existent, or because it might expose "cancel culture" as a tool used only to target those who don't toe the progressive line?
In other words, if the Muppets doesn't get "cancelled," is that evidence that "cancel culture" is a hoax, or is it evidence that "cancel culture" doesn't actually care about things like Swedish chefs, it only cares about conformity to a progressive worldview, which the Muppets arguably conform to?
I think the closing was effective in what it was going for: implying that this has all been a "grift." The abruptness is intended to leave the reader with a reverberating final note in their mind. "$250,000... $250,000..."
Consider that you know a lot about this topic and are disgusted by their handing of it. Consider that this might not be an outlier, and you may not be outraged by their handling of other topics simply because you know a bit less about them.
I don't know if this is true for you, but I've found it to be true for me. It took a good deal of time researching and revisiting to realize.
Thanks for including this link. I read the response before I read the NYT article. And while it was a pretty uninteresting article, the tactics used to obfuscate who holds what beliefs are laid bare. It's illuminating to see.
Personally, all over. You have to know the biases of the particular source you're consuming, and take that into account with every article. It's possible to read NYT and get some good info from it, but you need to know when to look elsewhere for more information.
Some places I find myself frequenting more than others though: Democracy Now, Popular Front, Antiwar.com, Harper's. I also like Glenn Greenwald a lot — in my mind if you genuinely risked your life for one of the most important stories ever, I give you a lot of benefit-of-the-doubt.
Places I avoid completely: Fox News, CNN, Breitbart (do I even need to mention that?), Vox.
One of their columnists made a big stink about not being allowed in a particular Clubhouse chat, and how it was incredibly dangerous for people to be talking without allowing the media in.
She then signed up with a fake name, joined a chat and immediately (wrongly) accused Marc Andreesen of "using the r-slur."
I came to a similar conclusion after hearing their "The Daily" report on phishing attacks pre-election. They described the phishing attempt as "looking exactly like a Facebook login form" and then said that this level of sophistication could only be accomplished by a state actor — obviously Russia in this case.
I was blown away and had that same thought: if they got this so wrong, and I can tell because I know about the topic, what don't I know about that they're also getting so wrong?