Thanks for setting the record straight about that horrible and misinformed NYer article. I was immediately shocked and disturbed that the New Yorker would even print such a factually inaccurate article. Too bad the millions deceived by Franzen's piece will never see your thoughtful and accurate response. Keep up the good work, Nathan!
Will you be writing a letter to the editor at the New Yorker? Or I would ask actually for an entire article on any subject of your choosing to make a wrong right. You can blow him out of the water., He needs a bit of acquired humility. Jonathan Frazen 's was a lazy ass article. He didn't even bother to research properly. Somehow like Eleanor Rigsby he left his brains in a jar by the door. Feral cats are an easy target they are so low on the right to life. He kicked them around one more time. As a graduate of Swarthmore, he was once, that would have earned him an F. He knew better.
I spent the last three decades writing rebuttals and LTEs. They rarely saw the light of day. Magazines like The New Yorker and newspapers like the New York Times do not like responses that, by virtue of their strength, underscore weak editorial decision-making.
I understand. Neither does government. Still it might be worth it. This time it might work. I have subscribed to the New Yorker since forever trusting they fact check, but this time they went with a name and didn't. So this is the overall effect for me: Now I no longer have faith the New Yorker does. How can I believe others who submit articles? It is a breech of trust. I guess I'll stick to the Guardian. I'll probably write that sometime this week...after I finish addressing another dead end letter office: Multnomah County government. HA HA And maybe I'll send your article to Franzen through the College. Mosquitoes can bite.
We should all write however briefly, I hope everyone writes because they care more about numbers and disappearing subscriptions than facts. I am going to write but to the editors in general and ask them to forward Nathan's rebuttal to Franzen to study,...an article Franzen should have researched before having an opinion. Maybe he is desperate for money. And now I am afraid all the New Yorker cares about is clicks and outrage. I don't know that any article they publish can be trusted anymore.
One must provide name, address daytime phone number.. e-mail to: themail@newyorker.com I understand the view that maybe it should not be dignified...but maybe they shouldn't behave in an undignified way either. They can always merge with the Enquirer.
Oh my God how awful! I am sorry you have such a hellish job! Thank you for taking time you probably don't have to draw attention to this travesty. I for one will be writing; hope everyone who saw this is able to do the same.
SHUT DOWN Jonathan Franzen — it is clear he has a very weak foundation of “facts” — he simply doesn’t give a damn about Cats and instead of telling the truth, he conjures up specious notions hoping it passes for truth — SHUT DOWN Jonathan Franzen.
I love cats. I have four, ages 14 and 15. They live indoors with me and they are my family members (I have no kids nor siblings). I can do without Franzen's b.s. I subscribe to the NYT and every now and then they publish something that is just really off the rails (like his garbage). Good luck trying to post a comment there. I've tried doing that with some of their articles that are not in the best interests of humanity and it never made it past the moderators, no matter how politely written. Too bad, because generally, the NYT is a very good newspaper and they do some very good investigative journalism. I especially like the coverage they've done lately on the topic of groundwater conservation. But this is like publishing an article that says it's ok to harm (insert ethnic group or animal/plant species here) and there's approving nods and smiles all around at the editorial board. If the NYT was supervised and published by my cats, you can be sure this tripe wouldn't be seeing the light of day, paper or digital!
We MIUST continue to write and share the truth no matter what the Franzen's say -- WHO do they think they are ! --- continue to write and share Nathan's truth.
People like him… they just hate cats, plain & simple. The concern for birds is a cover to make their arguments palatable to a non-discerning general public. What troubles me is this willingness on the part of widely read and well-known publications to “present both sides.” Some “sides”, if you want to politely call them that, are not morally nor ethically acceptable, no matter how they are contorted to seem so. In other words, wicked and evil ideas with potential to inspire others to cruel actions, should not be given oxygen, under the guise of “well, let’s listen to what the opposition has to say.” There are limits and this is one of them. Leave the cats alone.
Yes -- well said, Sherri -- I agree -- no oxygen should be given to non-sensical points of view -- yet, "they" seem to want to be "fair" and let everyone speak and say "whatever" -- a huge mistake.
And freedom of the press is an important right - it's in our Constitution. But I don't think our Founding Fathers were thinking of hate speech (because that's really what this; it's hatred of a particular species: cats) or even incitement to violence. Today however, people seem unable to constrain themselves and will post/publish anything that is wicked and/or incendiary - because they can. The press has moderators for their comments section. They should also use some editorial judgement for the material they choose to present. This is their responsibility, not only to their human readers but also to all the other creatures who inhabit this planet.
Yes — comparing this to “hate speech” is right on point — using judgement is key — Moderators need to know what is — and, what is not — I’ll continue to share.
But first put it through a shredder. Cats like soft litter! On second thought, my Daisy Kitty is an excellent shredder and would be happy to volunteer her services! She’s obliged for me in the past on objectional news pieces, much to her satisfaction and mine.
Thanks for the heads up as my issue had not yet arrived. My low intro offer to subscribe was cancelled after this.
I enjoy learning about these issues. Nathan helped me rescue and rehome dogs with no guilt I was displacing a dog from getting a home when I did dog rescue. Now the cats need me so I switched.
It sounds to me like Franzen and people that follow his primitive thinking are actually sadists on some level. Who the hell ENJOYS these cruel and expanding practices? In my mind sadists. You either love all life or you don't. You can't pick and choose which ones YOU believe deserve a place on this planet to live their life.
My fear has always been that more and more of the public will fall prey to organizations like PETA, Best Friends, etc. (we all know the players). I try my best as a citizen to share and promote the No Kill Equation to citizens and shelters the best I can. Well, here comes another idiot to spread false information.
I guess we will have to fight harder. Thank you for always staying on top of these issues and people. All of us love that you share all this information with us.
Me too! I hope everyone writes no matter how short, it can be very pithy, and include Nathan's rebuttal, or not. It is very easy to ignore one person; hard to ignore many.
Franzen joins Peter Singer in this group of miscreants whose rants are deemed publishable by some (formerly) respectable journals. As a feral cat colony caretaker I can tell everyone how wretchedly mistaken he is in every aspect of his soulless, brainless article. Go back to writing fiction, sir, you are obviously good at it.
Thanks for setting the record straight about that horrible and misinformed NYer article. I was immediately shocked and disturbed that the New Yorker would even print such a factually inaccurate article. Too bad the millions deceived by Franzen's piece will never see your thoughtful and accurate response. Keep up the good work, Nathan!
Bob -- let's share Nathan's response continually so everyone WILL see it.
Nathan,
Will you be writing a letter to the editor at the New Yorker? Or I would ask actually for an entire article on any subject of your choosing to make a wrong right. You can blow him out of the water., He needs a bit of acquired humility. Jonathan Frazen 's was a lazy ass article. He didn't even bother to research properly. Somehow like Eleanor Rigsby he left his brains in a jar by the door. Feral cats are an easy target they are so low on the right to life. He kicked them around one more time. As a graduate of Swarthmore, he was once, that would have earned him an F. He knew better.
I spent the last three decades writing rebuttals and LTEs. They rarely saw the light of day. Magazines like The New Yorker and newspapers like the New York Times do not like responses that, by virtue of their strength, underscore weak editorial decision-making.
I understand. Neither does government. Still it might be worth it. This time it might work. I have subscribed to the New Yorker since forever trusting they fact check, but this time they went with a name and didn't. So this is the overall effect for me: Now I no longer have faith the New Yorker does. How can I believe others who submit articles? It is a breech of trust. I guess I'll stick to the Guardian. I'll probably write that sometime this week...after I finish addressing another dead end letter office: Multnomah County government. HA HA And maybe I'll send your article to Franzen through the College. Mosquitoes can bite.
Will you be writing to The New Yorker ? I don't believe they checked any facts in this article -- maybe it was an "opinion" piece for them?
Sorry this is late... I work on animal advocacy at the shelter from hell, Multnomah County Animal Services, in Oregon so I am always running against a deadline trying to help people get their dogs out before they are killed and today was a very bad day but a good news day, (https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2024/01/former-multnomah-county-animal-services-volunteer-sues-county-alleging-it-retaliated-against-her-for-trying-to-save-dog.html)
We should all write however briefly, I hope everyone writes because they care more about numbers and disappearing subscriptions than facts. I am going to write but to the editors in general and ask them to forward Nathan's rebuttal to Franzen to study,...an article Franzen should have researched before having an opinion. Maybe he is desperate for money. And now I am afraid all the New Yorker cares about is clicks and outrage. I don't know that any article they publish can be trusted anymore.
One must provide name, address daytime phone number.. e-mail to: themail@newyorker.com I understand the view that maybe it should not be dignified...but maybe they shouldn't behave in an undignified way either. They can always merge with the Enquirer.
Oh my God how awful! I am sorry you have such a hellish job! Thank you for taking time you probably don't have to draw attention to this travesty. I for one will be writing; hope everyone who saw this is able to do the same.
SHUT DOWN Jonathan Franzen — it is clear he has a very weak foundation of “facts” — he simply doesn’t give a damn about Cats and instead of telling the truth, he conjures up specious notions hoping it passes for truth — SHUT DOWN Jonathan Franzen.
I love cats. I have four, ages 14 and 15. They live indoors with me and they are my family members (I have no kids nor siblings). I can do without Franzen's b.s. I subscribe to the NYT and every now and then they publish something that is just really off the rails (like his garbage). Good luck trying to post a comment there. I've tried doing that with some of their articles that are not in the best interests of humanity and it never made it past the moderators, no matter how politely written. Too bad, because generally, the NYT is a very good newspaper and they do some very good investigative journalism. I especially like the coverage they've done lately on the topic of groundwater conservation. But this is like publishing an article that says it's ok to harm (insert ethnic group or animal/plant species here) and there's approving nods and smiles all around at the editorial board. If the NYT was supervised and published by my cats, you can be sure this tripe wouldn't be seeing the light of day, paper or digital!
My apologies. The New Yorker, not the NYT! But I've seen similar unpleasantries that should not be published, nonetheless.
We MIUST continue to write and share the truth no matter what the Franzen's say -- WHO do they think they are ! --- continue to write and share Nathan's truth.
People like him… they just hate cats, plain & simple. The concern for birds is a cover to make their arguments palatable to a non-discerning general public. What troubles me is this willingness on the part of widely read and well-known publications to “present both sides.” Some “sides”, if you want to politely call them that, are not morally nor ethically acceptable, no matter how they are contorted to seem so. In other words, wicked and evil ideas with potential to inspire others to cruel actions, should not be given oxygen, under the guise of “well, let’s listen to what the opposition has to say.” There are limits and this is one of them. Leave the cats alone.
Yes -- well said, Sherri -- I agree -- no oxygen should be given to non-sensical points of view -- yet, "they" seem to want to be "fair" and let everyone speak and say "whatever" -- a huge mistake.
And freedom of the press is an important right - it's in our Constitution. But I don't think our Founding Fathers were thinking of hate speech (because that's really what this; it's hatred of a particular species: cats) or even incitement to violence. Today however, people seem unable to constrain themselves and will post/publish anything that is wicked and/or incendiary - because they can. The press has moderators for their comments section. They should also use some editorial judgement for the material they choose to present. This is their responsibility, not only to their human readers but also to all the other creatures who inhabit this planet.
Yes — comparing this to “hate speech” is right on point — using judgement is key — Moderators need to know what is — and, what is not — I’ll continue to share.
Agreed! This article should be used at the bottom of a litter box, for all it's worth.
But first put it through a shredder. Cats like soft litter! On second thought, my Daisy Kitty is an excellent shredder and would be happy to volunteer her services! She’s obliged for me in the past on objectional news pieces, much to her satisfaction and mine.
😹😹😹
It was published in the JANUARY 1,8 issue of THE NEW YORKER not the New York Times.
I know. I caught it and replied to my own comment.
The New Yorker Magazine got this wrong.
Thanks for the heads up as my issue had not yet arrived. My low intro offer to subscribe was cancelled after this.
I enjoy learning about these issues. Nathan helped me rescue and rehome dogs with no guilt I was displacing a dog from getting a home when I did dog rescue. Now the cats need me so I switched.
It sounds to me like Franzen and people that follow his primitive thinking are actually sadists on some level. Who the hell ENJOYS these cruel and expanding practices? In my mind sadists. You either love all life or you don't. You can't pick and choose which ones YOU believe deserve a place on this planet to live their life.
My fear has always been that more and more of the public will fall prey to organizations like PETA, Best Friends, etc. (we all know the players). I try my best as a citizen to share and promote the No Kill Equation to citizens and shelters the best I can. Well, here comes another idiot to spread false information.
I guess we will have to fight harder. Thank you for always staying on top of these issues and people. All of us love that you share all this information with us.
Thank you.
Me too! I hope everyone writes no matter how short, it can be very pithy, and include Nathan's rebuttal, or not. It is very easy to ignore one person; hard to ignore many.
Franzen joins Peter Singer in this group of miscreants whose rants are deemed publishable by some (formerly) respectable journals. As a feral cat colony caretaker I can tell everyone how wretchedly mistaken he is in every aspect of his soulless, brainless article. Go back to writing fiction, sir, you are obviously good at it.