The Romy and Michele of newsletters is back—wait, some of you *didn't* take off for a chunk of National Women's Month??—with a new party-girl drip and the Dolly dose you didn’t know you needed.
Mar 16, 2022Liked by Rachel Baker & Maggie Bullock, Maggie Bullock
I have to say I'm surprised re: Emma Camp, that you didn't mention her work with FIRE, a Koch Brothers foundation. She's also a member of Young America's Foundation, considered a high level conservative group for young people. So to play that she's just a regular gal who somehow made it to the pages of the NYT isn't quite true. Something tells me her resume and essay arrived on the Opinion page with important backers behind it. You might agree with her points, but let's call out her privileged position as what it is.
Thanks for the smart details and interesting point of suspicion! My first impulse is to track down Emma for an interview on the making of the op-ed... but who am I, Meghan Daum?! Whether or not I actually do a Spread chat with her, I'll just say that I think if the process went down as you describe, the top offender is the Times, not the kid. Which brings me to my final point (for now!): It's the Times Opinion section that "we" should be mad at if "we" are tired of this kind of self-censorship argument being published at such great frequency in the paper of record (I don't particularly mind, but there have been *many* of them in the last couple years, so I get that it seems disproportionate); I maintain that it's tacky and unproductive to tear down the kid. Thanks again for writing—and reading!
I have to say I'm surprised re: Emma Camp, that you didn't mention her work with FIRE, a Koch Brothers foundation. She's also a member of Young America's Foundation, considered a high level conservative group for young people. So to play that she's just a regular gal who somehow made it to the pages of the NYT isn't quite true. Something tells me her resume and essay arrived on the Opinion page with important backers behind it. You might agree with her points, but let's call out her privileged position as what it is.
Thanks for the smart details and interesting point of suspicion! My first impulse is to track down Emma for an interview on the making of the op-ed... but who am I, Meghan Daum?! Whether or not I actually do a Spread chat with her, I'll just say that I think if the process went down as you describe, the top offender is the Times, not the kid. Which brings me to my final point (for now!): It's the Times Opinion section that "we" should be mad at if "we" are tired of this kind of self-censorship argument being published at such great frequency in the paper of record (I don't particularly mind, but there have been *many* of them in the last couple years, so I get that it seems disproportionate); I maintain that it's tacky and unproductive to tear down the kid. Thanks again for writing—and reading!