Thanks for sharing—I didn’t know about this, but I’ll checked it out. My read is that they are lagely disagreeing with the second order media characteriation of the community being addicted to porn. In the original story, the NYT noted that even public displays of affection are taboo among the Marubo, so it’s easy to see why they would find that characterizaton particularly offensive. That said, it doesn’t really challenge the core claims we are making in our column, nor the core claims of the NYT column (which the Times stands behind). So I would still largely defer to the Times reporting on those issues unless it comes out in court that they were false or exaggerated.
I would tend to defer to what the actual tribal members say above the Times' reporting here, but that's my personal bias and preference because of their history of poor reporting on indigenous issues (recently this: https://indigenousjournalists.org/2019/11/naja-calls-for-second-apology-and-audit-of-new-york-times-story/#:~:text=These%20ethical%20breaches%20of%20SPJ,in%20Cape%20Dorsett%2C%20and%20NAJA.). To the NYT reporter's credit, they did put up a disclaimer saying they didn't intend to suggest they were 'addicted to porn'. But according to the AP article above, even that clarification wasn't enough for the tribe, who are offended by the suggestion/implication that somehow they can't handle modern technology exposure. I think that objection does challenge the core claims of the NYT column and what you're using this piece for here in your column.
That said, I agree that other core claims in your column are well-founded--I wasn't contesting those. I just thought this piece of evidence was questionable and wanted to call your attention to that.
Just FYI, the Marumbo people sued the NYT over that coverage and strongly disagree with the NYT and other outlets' characterization of their situation, which you're echoing in a couple of paragraphs here. See: https://apnews.com/article/marubo-tribe-amazon-new-york-times-9f989ebd87c9cf4d99d9b8b4d4c26c07.
Thanks for sharing—I didn’t know about this, but I’ll checked it out. My read is that they are lagely disagreeing with the second order media characteriation of the community being addicted to porn. In the original story, the NYT noted that even public displays of affection are taboo among the Marubo, so it’s easy to see why they would find that characterizaton particularly offensive. That said, it doesn’t really challenge the core claims we are making in our column, nor the core claims of the NYT column (which the Times stands behind). So I would still largely defer to the Times reporting on those issues unless it comes out in court that they were false or exaggerated.
I would tend to defer to what the actual tribal members say above the Times' reporting here, but that's my personal bias and preference because of their history of poor reporting on indigenous issues (recently this: https://indigenousjournalists.org/2019/11/naja-calls-for-second-apology-and-audit-of-new-york-times-story/#:~:text=These%20ethical%20breaches%20of%20SPJ,in%20Cape%20Dorsett%2C%20and%20NAJA.). To the NYT reporter's credit, they did put up a disclaimer saying they didn't intend to suggest they were 'addicted to porn'. But according to the AP article above, even that clarification wasn't enough for the tribe, who are offended by the suggestion/implication that somehow they can't handle modern technology exposure. I think that objection does challenge the core claims of the NYT column and what you're using this piece for here in your column.
That said, I agree that other core claims in your column are well-founded--I wasn't contesting those. I just thought this piece of evidence was questionable and wanted to call your attention to that.
I admire how you guys apply your psychological knowledge. I recognize what you are drawing from.