You wrote that a flaw of the Free Press is "Overreporting on the Israel-Hamas War while ignoring other global atrocities. In this regard, that makes them just like any other media publication."
One of the main reasons I subscribe to The Free Press is that they provide balance to the grossly anti-Israeli bias that I get from other news sources. I trust their criticisms of Israel, but do not trust the legacy media's criticisms.
You also wrote: "Engaging in tokenism. Coleman Hughes is their only Black staff writer, and his sensibilities lean, to put it simply, Jewish."
That seems racist to me. Coleman Hughes is an extremely gifted writer and thinker, yet you diminish his presence on TFP staff by calling him a "token". And labeling his sensibilities "Jewish" is ridiculous. What the hell are "Jewish" sensibilities?
Also, TFP has a very small staff. And Coleman Hughes is not the only writer "of color" on their staff, so one could already say that people "of color" are overrepresented, not underrepresented.
You also had this complaint: "Covering viral incidents involving racism and suggesting that there’s “more to the story” when there really isn’t"
Can you give an example where TFP covered a viral incident of racism where there wasn't "more to the story"?
Again, the reason I value TFP so much is that they provide a balance to the dishonest and manipulative "news" I get from legacy media and cable news.
Your criticisms seem unfair, and in your criticism of Coleman Hughes, somewhat racist.
You are totally right. These criticisms are ridiculous. They have like 7 writers or something and that group includes trans, black, Hispanic, and gay people. Couldn’t find a more diverse staff if you tried.
I was going to write out all the other reasons why this article is idiotic but I think you’ve captured it.
No. If you employ a POC because that POC thinks just like you, AND they’re the only representative of their group on staff who thinks just like you, THAT is tokenism. I think you just need to accept that your interpretation of my “take” wasn’t a good one. Not a big deal.
Oy. It is only tokenism if you care about the racial or whatever other identity of the person and you’ve sought specifically to hire someone from that group. You have made the baseless assumption that Coleman’s race factored into his hiring. If you are hiring based on quality of work, intellect and (god forbid) a shared worldview then the identity of that person is irrelevant. TFP has many pieces about this exact topic, as does Coleman.
All you’re doing here is revealing how you think of people - separating them by race, apparently. That’s a personal problem, there’s no need to project that onto TFP.
Perhaps they just cannot afford to hire someone else yet. After all, by that measure (which is still based on identity rather than merit or even just different opinion with same journalistic standards- the second I would prefer to the first) they should also hire one more Hispanic, one more Trans, and hey can she cover both white and lesbian? Or should there at least be a white gay guy? I actually don’t entirely disagree with you that it isn’t a really, really diverse crew (if you are measuring by identity) but they are still just a star-up and it takes years to develop. So it’s probably not really tokenism right now, it’s probably $.
You're missing the point. It doesn't matter how many writers they can "afford" to hire. It doesn't even matter how many representatives of different groups they have on staff. The question is why all of the minorities on staff, including Coleman, are people who think just like Bari.
I love the FP and it kept me sane after October 7 too. It also introduced me to a lot of other writers I now follow. I do find that they report from a very privileged perspective but so does almost every media outlet. As a definitely not well off economically American I am frustrated with a lot of writers who dismiss the concerns of those of us who can’t buy expensive eggs. I also think the FP is dead wrong on drug policy and harm reduction. Their hate for people who use drugs is really backward and harmful. But overall I love them. I also read Tablet and The Scroll which are self identified as Jewish publications.
I think we share the exact same view on this. Drug policy and harm reduction are areas they shouldn't be reporting on at all (or until they hire someone better-versed) b/c their writers don't have the relevant experience to opine on those issues. But on the issues they do report well on, they do so very well.
Jill, you make some really great points. I also subscribe to the Free Press, and I have been accused of being “right wing” for it which is neither true nor fair. I don’t expect that one publication is going to be able to do all of the things or do all of the things well, but they are humble enough to ask their readers for guidance and they are growing extremely quickly and doing an admirable job in the process IMHO. Also FWIW, I sent a private email to the staff earlier this year about the atrocious comments section (at the time dominated by one very odious individual) and while they never responded directly, the person was banned completely and the comments section has markedly improved—they are not too big to listen to their subscribers.
Good on you for reaching out to them to make your concerns known. I too have noticed that they are censoring their comments section more heavily now - which predictably has pissed others off (“I thought the FP was anti-censorship!”). Can’t please everyone, obviously
If it’s the same person I’m thinking of he simply got himself a new username - several, in fact, according to another commenter. But everyone knows who he is, calls him out and then ignores him completely. So it’s all good ;)
The NYT isn’t honest and no amount of FP work can fix that. It’s infested with racist “anti-racists” and Free Palestine cult members. I don’t expect full coverage of news from FP, and I know that the NYT is a propaganda rag of far-leftists barely supervised by spineless progressives. As for tokenizing, the only Jews the NYT has are token Jews shilling for antisemitic far-left.
I’d be happy for the FP to grow into a full blown newspaper, but the NYT long ago ceased being anything but propaganda. I don’t watch RT and couldn’t trust the NYT either.
Should they become a full-blown newspaper, they would need to employ people more adept at covering a wider range of issues. That being said I think they’re doing fine as an independent publication.
I too subscribe to the FP and also to Bari’s Honestly podcast. I fully agree that 1. it/they report from a privileged perspective, 2. that race / class isn’t covered, 3. that they’re good on Israel, in the sense of being Zionist. For all of these motives they’re a great antidote to “woke white privileged Columbia students” without being full-on reactionary - Bari’s now married to a woman, she was with a guy before, and I enjoy listening to her discussions with trans woman Brianna Wu.
Nellie’s weekly column alone would make me a lifetime subscriber- she is hilarious. Sorry but I’m not with you. If I had to pick only one news source FP would be it. You say it’s “Jewish” - what does that even mean? That it’s pro-Israel? I think you have to make more interesting and compelling points and express them more artfully if you want to effectively critique the FP, home to not only Coleman Hughes, but also Doug Murray, Niall Ferguson, and a long list of other “non-Jewish” writers of immense talent. I am open to hearing more from you because I don’t think any entity should be pedestaled but your critique looks to be for the sake of critique, and that’s just not interesting.
It's Jewish because it's run by Jewish people who employ other writers who think just like them, and yes it leans heavily pro-Israel, no different than publications like Tablet and The Forward. Again, there is nothing wrong with that - but they need to acknowledge their biases. All of their stories read like opinion columns. Many of those columns are compelling and important, but they're opinions nonetheless and need to be received as such.
Coleman Hughes is an excellent writer and along with other black conservative writers and intellectuals, such as Jason Riley and Deroy Murdock, I am glad he has found a forum in which to express his ideas about whatever they might be. I've never read anything by any of these writers that hasn't left me smarter and better informed. More than pleased that TFP provides an occasional forum for Coleman Hughes.
“An occasional forum”? He’s a staff writer like any of the others employed there. I am not disputing that Hughes is an excellent writer. I am simply questioning why he is the only Black writer on the FP’s staff.
YUP, occasional. He is not exclusively tied to TFP but his writing have also appeared in the NYT, WSJ, National Review, the Spectator, and other media outlets. He also has appeared on podcasts not connected to TFP, including The Rubin Report, Making Sense with Sam Harris, and others. As for being the only black staff member on TFP, even if true, so what?
He’s listed as a staff writer alongside Bari. I don’t know if that means he’s employed there FT, but I view him as on the same level as any of the other writers there. And anyway, my question remains: whether he’s writing there occasionally or often, why is he the FP’s only Black writer? You don’t seem to think this question is important as you choose to dismiss it as trivial. Well, it’s not.
We disagree, and I suggest so too would Coleman Hughes, who recently published a book called "The End of Race Politics: Arguing for a Colorblind America." I've only read reviews so far, but plan to read the book. Reviews state that in the book Hughes argues for a return to the ideals of a colorblind America as envisioned by MLK Jr. Based on your response it seems you feel otherwise.
“why are so many mentally ill individuals out in public posing a danger to themselves and others without proper intervention? The answer has nothing to do with race or wokeness).” I would beg to differ. It has everything to do with wokeness because part of that ideology requires a blind adherence to moral relativism so that my desire to intervene in the life of a mentally ill person because I believe it’s in his and my best interest is never to be valued over that mentally ill person’s desire to remain untreated. To condemn moral relativism and instead insist that my liberal democratic values are in fact better than some other value systems (including radical Islam) is absolutely verboten. So wokeness demands that the only proper intervention is no intervention unless demanded by the mentally ill.
I thought the Central Park birder piece was really compelling. It made me feel completely differently about the situation. I think the FP’s pieces have a lot of depth to them. It seems some people get off on dissing Bari and I’m not sure I understand why?
“Why are so many mentally ill individuals out in public posing a danger to themselves and others without proper intervention? The answer has nothing to do with race or wokeness).”
Correct.
Jill, the Free Press featured a podcast following Neely’s death in which various people covered the incident, its precursors, and the media’s reaction to it. The conversation went far deeper than “woke” or “race.” Bari Weiss also interviewed Freddy DeBoar, a peculiar writer and blogger with bipolar disorder, on issues related to mental illness, medications, and health care for mentally ill in the U.S.
I began learning about the Free Press before there was Free Press, thru Bari Weiss’s podcasts. It didn’t even occur to me to wonder about the race of her guests… Her interviews with Roland Fryer, Eric Adams, John McWhorter, and Glenn Lowry were incredibly insightful - and covered the race issue plenty. Have you even heard them?
“With her rich wife …”. Since you raised the subject of admitting one’s biases, well, it’s never too late to start. Also, what are “Jewish sensibilities”? At what point do sensibilities become Jewish? Are they like Jewish neighborhoods? You can’t define them, but you know them when you see them? Are they akin to Noam Chomsky’s sensibilities? Or maybe to Meir Kahane’s? You are essentially telling TFP “to stay in its own lane”, which you describe as being a Jewish publication. I suspect they have the good sense to keep doing what they are doing.
At what point does a member of the goyim’s sensibilities become Jewish? When they do a significant amount of writing defending Jews and the Jewish state in response to ignorant goyim, and are employed as a token minority at a Jewish publication.
If that’s your definition of Jewish sensibilities, then you just described a large contingent of the GOP and Evangelicals. Though, I don’t think they would appreciate being referred to as goyim. I also don’t think anyone at TFP would appreciate being demeaned as a token. And they certainly wouldn’t refer to their readership as ignorant goyim. I really think you missed the mark here.
The Free Press is not a Jewish publication though. They have a specific take on issues of vital importance to Jewish communities in the U.S. and Israel but are not exclusive to Jewish issues. And why do they need to employ Evangelicals??
I’m confused; the FP allows a reader to choose their subject. There is no requirement to read news on Israel. You, specifically want to turn it into what you believe newsworthy. Silly.
Is Coleman Hughes really such a token? He voted for Biden in 2020 and didn't vote in 2024. Dems won 90% of blacks in 2020 and 80% in 2024. So he's maybe the 80th percentile of right-wing among black people, as far as US partisan politics is concerned. If you have 10 random black people in the US, maybe 2 will be more right wing than Coleman and 8 will be more left-wing. He's not the median but he's not so far off. Yes he is pretty anti woke.
Many of these infamous terrible far-left black activist "intellectuals" are less representative of the Black American population than Coleman is. Eddie Glaude voted for Jill Stein. Cornel West similar story. Ta-Nehisi Coates is also pretty extreme. Nikole-Hannah Jones' 1619 project was criticized by black historians for being inaccurate. And yet no one calls them tokens.
The typical Black American is a relatively centrist Democrat who is somewhat woke, but not super woke, and is riding with Biden. Bakari Sellers might be a good example. Van Jones and John McWhorter are also centrist Democrats, but are less woke.
I am not criticizing Coleman Hughes, I am criticizing the publication employing him. And no, Coleman is not representative of most Americans in general - he is Ivy League educated and an elite. In that aspect, he’s just like the typical FP writer and one of the reasons the publication is out of touch with regular Americans.
I don’t think if Coleman Hughes as conservative. I consider him exceptionally well-balanced with deeply considered views and opinions. Perhaps those are the most important factors for the FP.
I disagree with many of your statements but I don’t know enough about the staff writers at TFP to comment about them except Hughes. I’ve been following him for years and as a black person myself I’ve always found his perspective viable and relatable to most of the black community I know. Calling him a “token” is in itself a racist comment.
It's his employer that is engaging in tokenism. You need to ask yourself why the only Black person at the FP is someone who thinks exactly like his boss, Bari Weiss. I like Coleman Hughes and his work, this is nothing against him.
PS: I think it's hilarious how several commenters on this thread accuse me of being racist for calling out the FP for this, and then go on to use terms like "Uncle Tom" to describe what Coleman is *not.* Who is the one invoking racist tropes in this scenario, hm?
When the word “token” is used it’s usually referring to a black person in a white space. Yes, it’s not used against the black person in most cases. Maybe Bari could seek out more diverse options for TFP, I understand the point you’re making. I think you can make the point without using the word token. Is it possible that Bari (like you and me) likes Colman’s work and perspectives regardless of his color?
I don’t think the flaws outweigh the benefits. Bari Weiss is a dishonest grifter and FP is just another variation on the Daily Wire / Washington Times / etc motif. It’s as flawed as those publications. It is significantly more flawed than actual media.
I prefer “legacy media” but regardless of what you call them, the media outlets that are owned by billionaires, staffed by Ivy League graduates, and use predictable framing for all of their coverage have plenty of stock phrases they use to delegitimize anyone who doesn’t share their ideological priors.
Everyone is a propagandist for whoever is paying their bills. The fact that legacy media pretends their objective is why they’re trusted less than Congress nowadays.
I dislike the term, too, but we need words to call out the utter failure of the 4th estate to get “we the people” all of the facts with none of the sane washing so that they could make informed choices. That would have included explainer pieces about tariffs and the inevitable effects of mass deportation on the economy. It would have also included more complete reporting about the company the president-elect keeps and his many criminal enterprises.
I also see “legacy media” and “corporate media” being used. Do you prefer either of those terms?
You wrote that a flaw of the Free Press is "Overreporting on the Israel-Hamas War while ignoring other global atrocities. In this regard, that makes them just like any other media publication."
One of the main reasons I subscribe to The Free Press is that they provide balance to the grossly anti-Israeli bias that I get from other news sources. I trust their criticisms of Israel, but do not trust the legacy media's criticisms.
You also wrote: "Engaging in tokenism. Coleman Hughes is their only Black staff writer, and his sensibilities lean, to put it simply, Jewish."
That seems racist to me. Coleman Hughes is an extremely gifted writer and thinker, yet you diminish his presence on TFP staff by calling him a "token". And labeling his sensibilities "Jewish" is ridiculous. What the hell are "Jewish" sensibilities?
Also, TFP has a very small staff. And Coleman Hughes is not the only writer "of color" on their staff, so one could already say that people "of color" are overrepresented, not underrepresented.
You also had this complaint: "Covering viral incidents involving racism and suggesting that there’s “more to the story” when there really isn’t"
Can you give an example where TFP covered a viral incident of racism where there wasn't "more to the story"?
Again, the reason I value TFP so much is that they provide a balance to the dishonest and manipulative "news" I get from legacy media and cable news.
Your criticisms seem unfair, and in your criticism of Coleman Hughes, somewhat racist.
You are totally right. These criticisms are ridiculous. They have like 7 writers or something and that group includes trans, black, Hispanic, and gay people. Couldn’t find a more diverse staff if you tried.
I was going to write out all the other reasons why this article is idiotic but I think you’ve captured it.
Yes, having trans, Black, and brown people who all think just like Bari Weiss is just the hallmark of diversity. You hit the nail on the head there.
That was in response to your claim that they engage in tokenism. If your whole staff are tokens, then you aren’t engaging in tokenism.
“Thinking like Bari Weiss” appears to just be holding to basic standards of journalism and decency.
I think you just need to accept that not every take one has will be a good one and this take wasn’t good. Not a big deal.
No. If you employ a POC because that POC thinks just like you, AND they’re the only representative of their group on staff who thinks just like you, THAT is tokenism. I think you just need to accept that your interpretation of my “take” wasn’t a good one. Not a big deal.
Oy. It is only tokenism if you care about the racial or whatever other identity of the person and you’ve sought specifically to hire someone from that group. You have made the baseless assumption that Coleman’s race factored into his hiring. If you are hiring based on quality of work, intellect and (god forbid) a shared worldview then the identity of that person is irrelevant. TFP has many pieces about this exact topic, as does Coleman.
All you’re doing here is revealing how you think of people - separating them by race, apparently. That’s a personal problem, there’s no need to project that onto TFP.
I know Kyle, you "don't see color." How noble.
Perhaps they just cannot afford to hire someone else yet. After all, by that measure (which is still based on identity rather than merit or even just different opinion with same journalistic standards- the second I would prefer to the first) they should also hire one more Hispanic, one more Trans, and hey can she cover both white and lesbian? Or should there at least be a white gay guy? I actually don’t entirely disagree with you that it isn’t a really, really diverse crew (if you are measuring by identity) but they are still just a star-up and it takes years to develop. So it’s probably not really tokenism right now, it’s probably $.
You're missing the point. It doesn't matter how many writers they can "afford" to hire. It doesn't even matter how many representatives of different groups they have on staff. The question is why all of the minorities on staff, including Coleman, are people who think just like Bari.
They can’t afford to?!?!? 😳😱
Jill, are you saying that intellectual diversity is more important than token visual diversity?
I love the FP and it kept me sane after October 7 too. It also introduced me to a lot of other writers I now follow. I do find that they report from a very privileged perspective but so does almost every media outlet. As a definitely not well off economically American I am frustrated with a lot of writers who dismiss the concerns of those of us who can’t buy expensive eggs. I also think the FP is dead wrong on drug policy and harm reduction. Their hate for people who use drugs is really backward and harmful. But overall I love them. I also read Tablet and The Scroll which are self identified as Jewish publications.
I think we share the exact same view on this. Drug policy and harm reduction are areas they shouldn't be reporting on at all (or until they hire someone better-versed) b/c their writers don't have the relevant experience to opine on those issues. But on the issues they do report well on, they do so very well.
Can you point out an example of how they hate those who use drugs on the FP pages?
Jill, you make some really great points. I also subscribe to the Free Press, and I have been accused of being “right wing” for it which is neither true nor fair. I don’t expect that one publication is going to be able to do all of the things or do all of the things well, but they are humble enough to ask their readers for guidance and they are growing extremely quickly and doing an admirable job in the process IMHO. Also FWIW, I sent a private email to the staff earlier this year about the atrocious comments section (at the time dominated by one very odious individual) and while they never responded directly, the person was banned completely and the comments section has markedly improved—they are not too big to listen to their subscribers.
Good on you for reaching out to them to make your concerns known. I too have noticed that they are censoring their comments section more heavily now - which predictably has pissed others off (“I thought the FP was anti-censorship!”). Can’t please everyone, obviously
Well sure, a couple people were effectively running their own Substack out of TFPs comments section so I’m sure they’re not best pleased 🤣
If it’s the same person I’m thinking of he simply got himself a new username - several, in fact, according to another commenter. But everyone knows who he is, calls him out and then ignores him completely. So it’s all good ;)
What a truly odd hobby. Lol.
The NYT isn’t honest and no amount of FP work can fix that. It’s infested with racist “anti-racists” and Free Palestine cult members. I don’t expect full coverage of news from FP, and I know that the NYT is a propaganda rag of far-leftists barely supervised by spineless progressives. As for tokenizing, the only Jews the NYT has are token Jews shilling for antisemitic far-left.
I’d be happy for the FP to grow into a full blown newspaper, but the NYT long ago ceased being anything but propaganda. I don’t watch RT and couldn’t trust the NYT either.
Should they become a full-blown newspaper, they would need to employ people more adept at covering a wider range of issues. That being said I think they’re doing fine as an independent publication.
If NYT and WaPo fired half their staff they might do a good job too.
The FP is an excellent must read evry day, as is Tablet and The Scroll. It is a great alternative to both conservative and legacy media.
…so you agree with me that the FP is a Jewish publication.
How is so? Because they brought Nathan Sharansky and Haviv Rettig Gur? Or because Bari Weiss wrote a book on antisemitism?
I thought it’s campaign coverage was superb
I too subscribe to the FP and also to Bari’s Honestly podcast. I fully agree that 1. it/they report from a privileged perspective, 2. that race / class isn’t covered, 3. that they’re good on Israel, in the sense of being Zionist. For all of these motives they’re a great antidote to “woke white privileged Columbia students” without being full-on reactionary - Bari’s now married to a woman, she was with a guy before, and I enjoy listening to her discussions with trans woman Brianna Wu.
I appreciate Brianna as well.
Nellie’s weekly column alone would make me a lifetime subscriber- she is hilarious. Sorry but I’m not with you. If I had to pick only one news source FP would be it. You say it’s “Jewish” - what does that even mean? That it’s pro-Israel? I think you have to make more interesting and compelling points and express them more artfully if you want to effectively critique the FP, home to not only Coleman Hughes, but also Doug Murray, Niall Ferguson, and a long list of other “non-Jewish” writers of immense talent. I am open to hearing more from you because I don’t think any entity should be pedestaled but your critique looks to be for the sake of critique, and that’s just not interesting.
It's Jewish because it's run by Jewish people who employ other writers who think just like them, and yes it leans heavily pro-Israel, no different than publications like Tablet and The Forward. Again, there is nothing wrong with that - but they need to acknowledge their biases. All of their stories read like opinion columns. Many of those columns are compelling and important, but they're opinions nonetheless and need to be received as such.
Coleman Hughes is an excellent writer and along with other black conservative writers and intellectuals, such as Jason Riley and Deroy Murdock, I am glad he has found a forum in which to express his ideas about whatever they might be. I've never read anything by any of these writers that hasn't left me smarter and better informed. More than pleased that TFP provides an occasional forum for Coleman Hughes.
“An occasional forum”? He’s a staff writer like any of the others employed there. I am not disputing that Hughes is an excellent writer. I am simply questioning why he is the only Black writer on the FP’s staff.
YUP, occasional. He is not exclusively tied to TFP but his writing have also appeared in the NYT, WSJ, National Review, the Spectator, and other media outlets. He also has appeared on podcasts not connected to TFP, including The Rubin Report, Making Sense with Sam Harris, and others. As for being the only black staff member on TFP, even if true, so what?
He’s listed as a staff writer alongside Bari. I don’t know if that means he’s employed there FT, but I view him as on the same level as any of the other writers there. And anyway, my question remains: whether he’s writing there occasionally or often, why is he the FP’s only Black writer? You don’t seem to think this question is important as you choose to dismiss it as trivial. Well, it’s not.
We disagree, and I suggest so too would Coleman Hughes, who recently published a book called "The End of Race Politics: Arguing for a Colorblind America." I've only read reviews so far, but plan to read the book. Reviews state that in the book Hughes argues for a return to the ideals of a colorblind America as envisioned by MLK Jr. Based on your response it seems you feel otherwise.
I just got his new book as well!
“why are so many mentally ill individuals out in public posing a danger to themselves and others without proper intervention? The answer has nothing to do with race or wokeness).” I would beg to differ. It has everything to do with wokeness because part of that ideology requires a blind adherence to moral relativism so that my desire to intervene in the life of a mentally ill person because I believe it’s in his and my best interest is never to be valued over that mentally ill person’s desire to remain untreated. To condemn moral relativism and instead insist that my liberal democratic values are in fact better than some other value systems (including radical Islam) is absolutely verboten. So wokeness demands that the only proper intervention is no intervention unless demanded by the mentally ill.
This is the best comment here. This is what I can the "false compassion" of the left.
I thought the Central Park birder piece was really compelling. It made me feel completely differently about the situation. I think the FP’s pieces have a lot of depth to them. It seems some people get off on dissing Bari and I’m not sure I understand why?
“Why are so many mentally ill individuals out in public posing a danger to themselves and others without proper intervention? The answer has nothing to do with race or wokeness).”
Correct.
Jill, the Free Press featured a podcast following Neely’s death in which various people covered the incident, its precursors, and the media’s reaction to it. The conversation went far deeper than “woke” or “race.” Bari Weiss also interviewed Freddy DeBoar, a peculiar writer and blogger with bipolar disorder, on issues related to mental illness, medications, and health care for mentally ill in the U.S.
I began learning about the Free Press before there was Free Press, thru Bari Weiss’s podcasts. It didn’t even occur to me to wonder about the race of her guests… Her interviews with Roland Fryer, Eric Adams, John McWhorter, and Glenn Lowry were incredibly insightful - and covered the race issue plenty. Have you even heard them?
“With her rich wife …”. Since you raised the subject of admitting one’s biases, well, it’s never too late to start. Also, what are “Jewish sensibilities”? At what point do sensibilities become Jewish? Are they like Jewish neighborhoods? You can’t define them, but you know them when you see them? Are they akin to Noam Chomsky’s sensibilities? Or maybe to Meir Kahane’s? You are essentially telling TFP “to stay in its own lane”, which you describe as being a Jewish publication. I suspect they have the good sense to keep doing what they are doing.
At what point does a member of the goyim’s sensibilities become Jewish? When they do a significant amount of writing defending Jews and the Jewish state in response to ignorant goyim, and are employed as a token minority at a Jewish publication.
If that’s your definition of Jewish sensibilities, then you just described a large contingent of the GOP and Evangelicals. Though, I don’t think they would appreciate being referred to as goyim. I also don’t think anyone at TFP would appreciate being demeaned as a token. And they certainly wouldn’t refer to their readership as ignorant goyim. I really think you missed the mark here.
Really? How many GOP evangelical types are employed at Jewish publications? Send me some of those articles please, I would love to see them.
The Free Press is not a Jewish publication though. They have a specific take on issues of vital importance to Jewish communities in the U.S. and Israel but are not exclusive to Jewish issues. And why do they need to employ Evangelicals??
They don't - they're Jewish.
I’m confused; the FP allows a reader to choose their subject. There is no requirement to read news on Israel. You, specifically want to turn it into what you believe newsworthy. Silly.
If you choose not to read their coverage on Israel/the Israel-Hamas War, you're missing out on a significant percentage of the publication.
Is Coleman Hughes really such a token? He voted for Biden in 2020 and didn't vote in 2024. Dems won 90% of blacks in 2020 and 80% in 2024. So he's maybe the 80th percentile of right-wing among black people, as far as US partisan politics is concerned. If you have 10 random black people in the US, maybe 2 will be more right wing than Coleman and 8 will be more left-wing. He's not the median but he's not so far off. Yes he is pretty anti woke.
Many of these infamous terrible far-left black activist "intellectuals" are less representative of the Black American population than Coleman is. Eddie Glaude voted for Jill Stein. Cornel West similar story. Ta-Nehisi Coates is also pretty extreme. Nikole-Hannah Jones' 1619 project was criticized by black historians for being inaccurate. And yet no one calls them tokens.
The typical Black American is a relatively centrist Democrat who is somewhat woke, but not super woke, and is riding with Biden. Bakari Sellers might be a good example. Van Jones and John McWhorter are also centrist Democrats, but are less woke.
I am not criticizing Coleman Hughes, I am criticizing the publication employing him. And no, Coleman is not representative of most Americans in general - he is Ivy League educated and an elite. In that aspect, he’s just like the typical FP writer and one of the reasons the publication is out of touch with regular Americans.
I don’t think if Coleman Hughes as conservative. I consider him exceptionally well-balanced with deeply considered views and opinions. Perhaps those are the most important factors for the FP.
...at what point did I ever say that I thought Coleman Hughes was a "conservative"?
I disagree with many of your statements but I don’t know enough about the staff writers at TFP to comment about them except Hughes. I’ve been following him for years and as a black person myself I’ve always found his perspective viable and relatable to most of the black community I know. Calling him a “token” is in itself a racist comment.
It's his employer that is engaging in tokenism. You need to ask yourself why the only Black person at the FP is someone who thinks exactly like his boss, Bari Weiss. I like Coleman Hughes and his work, this is nothing against him.
PS: I think it's hilarious how several commenters on this thread accuse me of being racist for calling out the FP for this, and then go on to use terms like "Uncle Tom" to describe what Coleman is *not.* Who is the one invoking racist tropes in this scenario, hm?
When the word “token” is used it’s usually referring to a black person in a white space. Yes, it’s not used against the black person in most cases. Maybe Bari could seek out more diverse options for TFP, I understand the point you’re making. I think you can make the point without using the word token. Is it possible that Bari (like you and me) likes Colman’s work and perspectives regardless of his color?
We all like his work and perspectives…and the FP readers like them mostly because they align with their own.
Sure but he’s hardly a far right Uncle Tom. Man never even voted Trump.
…and I never suggested he was.
You did call him a token. Usually when you call a non woke black guy a token you’re making that kind of suggestion.
But fair, he is more like a black guy with many of the same opinions as Bari Weiss.
I don’t think the flaws outweigh the benefits. Bari Weiss is a dishonest grifter and FP is just another variation on the Daily Wire / Washington Times / etc motif. It’s as flawed as those publications. It is significantly more flawed than actual media.
Problem is that the mainstream media is so problematic now that saying something else is “worse” requires further explanation.
I have never liked terms like “mainstream media.” It’s used by propagandists to delegitimize coverage they don’t like.
I prefer “legacy media” but regardless of what you call them, the media outlets that are owned by billionaires, staffed by Ivy League graduates, and use predictable framing for all of their coverage have plenty of stock phrases they use to delegitimize anyone who doesn’t share their ideological priors.
Everyone is a propagandist for whoever is paying their bills. The fact that legacy media pretends their objective is why they’re trusted less than Congress nowadays.
I dislike the term, too, but we need words to call out the utter failure of the 4th estate to get “we the people” all of the facts with none of the sane washing so that they could make informed choices. That would have included explainer pieces about tariffs and the inevitable effects of mass deportation on the economy. It would have also included more complete reporting about the company the president-elect keeps and his many criminal enterprises.
I also see “legacy media” and “corporate media” being used. Do you prefer either of those terms?
Those may be better. One thing is sure: you won’t see “The Free Press” doing any of those things!!
Well, then you are their ideal target audience: a closed-minded ideologue. Enjoy. they are there for you.
Spoken like a truly un self aware person.
lol sure pal
What do you read as news?
No.
“At its core, a Jewish publication…?” Are you serious? You’re just pulling everyone’s leg, right?
Simply put, I don’t want to eat what you eat or drink what you drink. It’s warping your brain cells.
Thanks for subscribing! ☺️