News
Jun 19, 2014 at 2:41 pm
Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
More In News
Popular Articles
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
He's also one of the few opinion writers out there who go out of their way to tackle partisan issues in a non-partisan way, but without resorting to the lazy CNN-think that attempts to show impartiality by trying to prove that both sides are equally wrong, which is itself as much an agenda as any partisan or ideological agenda.
Mortenson and Mam fooled uncountable numbers of people, including others in the media. They both were doing good work (Mam especially so -- it's her story that's fraudulent not her work) although Mortenson wasn't doing anything near what he said he was. So, sure, Kristof got a couple wrong (along with dozens/hundreds/thousands(?) of other journalists, and I'm sure part of his fact checking was seeing what others had written about them (he certainly didn't discover Mam and Mortenson). But saying he's a court jester for the NYT's affluent readers is crass; one should be a little kinder when questioning other's charitable acts or good works (or not question them at all). Kristof continues to write about important and difficult issues, and I'm guessing some people are getting more help because of it, Band-Aid or not. I can imagine all the snooty kids saying "yeah, fuck that guy who writes for the affluent" and justifying not giving to good causes because of it.
He can keep doing his thing, I just won't be reading it.
Also, because he is so monofocussed on a narrow aspect of the problem much of the time, it can have messed up outcomes, like happened when his celebrity driven movement (he actually calls it the Half-The-Sky Movement) pressured foreign governments and NGOs to squeeze the Cambodian government to do something about sex trafficking and slavery. The end result was that the Cambodian military and police raided ALL the brothels and imprisoned the prostitutes, regardless of their involuntary or voluntary status.
And the whole Half-the-sky thing just tastes like a fundraising pitch. I understand that if it was trying for more fundamental change, the countries wouldn't even let him in, but still, it feels shallow.
First off, try spelling the guy's name correctly. The correct spelling is right there in front of you.
Second, when you write something like "The problem with Kristoff (sic)," you're stating in no uncertain terms that small-scale appeals to help non-profits constitute the bulk of his work. Not only do the topics where such appeals come up constitute but a small part of his work, but the appeals to non-profits are not even the primary message he's trying to convey in the columns on such topics. He generally is about challenging injustice.
Cracked, here's a little suggestion. Try being informed about a subject before you pontificate about it.
And no, I'm not misconstruing what you wrote. You wrote it. Don't back out of it.
Clarification to what I wrote @4: I can't think of any mainstream opinion writer who's come close to Kristof when it comes to exposing the plight of factory farm animals.
Yeah, the causes he championed were good but what's that worth if he's erased not only his credibility but the likely value of the groups and organizations he's been supporting?
Nick Kristof is for dumb, uneducated liberals. Period. I learn a lot about a person when they tell me they like Kristof. My first reaction is that they're not bright... but they think they are. A lethal combination. Kristof's work is insulting first of all. He paints "the developing world" with one stroke -- they're all poor-miserable-starving-unempowered who need to be 'saved' etc. The most condescending load of shit I've ever seen.
Worse, he contributes to the view that Americans are stupid. Because the people that read him are somewhat educated Americans who spew out his predictable tear-jerker tropes to others who are then moved by the tired, simplistic narratives and feel they are now knowledgeable about the developing world. People like Kristof are the perpetrators of the 'single story'
(http://www.ted.com/talks/chimamanda_adic…). Insulting. It robs people of dignity for a sensationalist buck. He is not educating people, he's filling up their minds with cheez whiz. Junk food for semi-educated. It's embarrassing.
Read the comments of #4, 7, 9 - hook, line and sinker. You'd think our educational institutions could produce more critical thinkers than this but, no. Kristof's popularity proves that this is not the case. People prefer the T.V. movie version of the world. Amazing.
I give Kristoff the benefit of the doubt sometimes because he appears to have a good heart and commendable intentions. He strikes me as being naive though.
You make the guy look bad with your defense.
First of all, have some of the spokescows and chickens been lying about their history to help them raise money?
Second, you didn't say anything to refute my main point. Half the Sky is the most well known, and best organized, activity he has engaged in the past 15 years, the Half The Sky Movement. Go to their "Act" page.
http://www.halftheskymovement.org/pages/…