Bret Stephens wrote his debut op-ed in the New York Times last week, and the column definitely got page views—though maybe not the reaction the newspaper of record had hoped for. Will Oremus notes on Slate that "a flurry of environmentalists, climate scientists, and other disgruntled readers" nixed their Times subscriptions in response to the conservative Pulitzer Prize winner's piece on climate change, which warned readers "to be skeptical of an overweening scientism"—what many have attacked as veering into climate change denial. A Times rep tells Oremus only a "tiny fraction" of subscribers have canceled in recent weeks (with just as small a fraction doing so directly due to Stephens and/or his op-ed), though Oremus notes the damage done to the paper may not have come in monetary form but via "a blow to environmentalists' perceptions" of it. Other takes:
- The Times notes it received "an unusually large outpouring" of letters to the editor (more than 600, by its own count) on Stephens' column. It offers a sample of reader commentary, with some crying "misdirection" and others extending a welcome to the "measured, insightful" author.
- Once more for Slate, Oremus takes on the practicality of canceling subscriptions as a response to a single column in a major newspaper, calling it "an unfair reaction" that "isn't necessarily wrong." What the right answer is depends on "the groundwork you apply to your moral calculus," Oremus writes.