The Los Angeles Times recently experienced a spate of layoffs, due to plummeting ad sales, weak subscription numbers, and (probably) woke editorial decision-making.
Now, a serious publication interested in enhanced readership and profitability might use this situation as an opportunity for self-reflection and course correction.
However, this is the LA Times, so it will double down. For example, the newspaper recently published an opinion piece from a University of Southern California assistant professor of environmental studies that gave the thumbs-up to the recent vandalism at the Louvre in Paris, France.
Shannon Gibson argues that these antics make less aggressive tactics more successful, as bureaucrats become more persuadable to enact climate cultist policies.
By combining radical forms of civil disobedience with more mainstream actions, such as lobbying and state-sanctioned demonstrations, activists not only grab the public’s attention, they make less aggressive tactics more acceptable and possibly more successful.
I study the role of disruptive politics and social movements in global climate policy and have chronicled the ebb, flow and dynamism of climate activism. With today’s political institutions largely focused on short-term desires over long-term planetary health, and global climate negotiations moving too slowly to meet the challenge, climate activists have been radically rethinking their tactics.
…Criticism of extreme activism often misses a crucial point: Public reaction isn’t necessarily the activists’ end goal. Often, their aim is to influence government and business decision-makers.
Objections to acts of climate activism such as the latest food fight at the Louvre are understandable but might miss the point. Protesters’ perceived madness is indeed method.
She really most be enjoying the European farmers protests, then because their activism may make decision-makers more willing to adopt policies that allow agriculturalists to grow the food and raise the livestock that people enjoy eating.
Now, it turns out Gibson is pretty proud of this piece:
Pretty proud to crank this out during week 2 of maternity leave…my first LA Times byline!
— Shannon Gibson (@ProfSMGibson) February 1, 2024
However, there is no ability to comment directly on her X-post, as she limited comments to follows or mentions. How much respect is this piece receiving?
I noted that there were a quite a few quote-tweets, so I followed the trail.
When I checked, I realized their thoughts aligned with my own.
Apparently Shannon doesn’t know that attempting to deface art is NOT, by definition, civil disobedience.
Civil disobedience must be peaceful *and* the violation of unjust laws.
— Fr. John Naugle (@FatherNaugle) February 2, 2024
Why would a failing newspaper continue to print silly garbage like this? “Reporter” even lacks the integrity to allow comments on her posts. That is all you need to know – this is just silly propaganda. https://t.co/0sZhGcXglO
— John Q. Public (@JohnQuPublic) February 2, 2024
You r so out of touch from reality that you really believe ppl throwing soup on one of the greatest paintings ever created is gonna make climate activism “more acceptable and possibly more successful”
— 𝐊𝐚𝐢𝐛𝐚 𝕏 (@KaibaXBT) February 2, 2024
There are so may science-oriented challenges I could bring-up here as well:
But the point I want to conclude with is that it tuition at USC is $67,000 per year. At that price, students should get more from their education than woke activism dressed up as a “studies” program.
I foresee more layoffs in the LA Times‘ future.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.