In the aftermath of the purely coincidental day when both GLAAD and terminally woke contributors to the New York Times demanded that the paper of record only publish articles and op-eds that adhered to the orthodoxy of transgender activists, the New York Times did something completely unexpected. It grew a pair.
Participation in such a campaign is against the letter and spirit of our ethics policy.
We do not welcome, and will not tolerate, participation by Times journalists in protests organized by advocacy groups or attacks on colleagues on social media and other public forums.
This, in turn drew a response from the Susan DeCarava, president of the New York Times union.
Employees are protected in collectively raising concerns that conditions of their employment constitute a hostile working environment. This was the concern explicitly raised in the letter at issue here.
Is disagreement, or the hurt feelings and claims of harm stemming from views with which one disagrees, a condition of employment such that objecting to it is a protected activity under Section 7? Hardly. But DeCarava’s attempt to couch demands for ideological purity as protected collective action revealed another, different, concern. Had the staff of the New York Times given up on being journalists in favor of being the vanguard of activism?
Even if they said nothing in the first place, or offered no union response to the executive editor’s warning that the New York Times was a newspaper, not a progressive house organ, they could have quietly persisted in writing articles and op-eds designed to push their ideological agenda at the expense of accuracy, fairness and, can this be said anymore?, objectivity.
What happened next, however, is shocking, at least to those of us who wondered whether there was anyone left at the Times with the guts to do journalism when all around them were losing their heads. And there they were.
Dear Susan,
We are writing to you privately in response to your February 17th letter, which we were surprised to see.
Like you, we support the right to a non-hostile workplace where everyone is respected and supported. We believe The New York Times should never engage in biased or discriminatory practices of any kind. We all strive to be part of a truly diverse news organization where everyone is treated fairly. We welcome robust and respectful critical feedback from colleagues, either in direct conversation or through internal Times channels.
But your letter appears to suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of our responsibilities as journalists. Regretfully, our own union leadership now seems determined to undermine the ethical and professional protections that we depend on to guard the independence and integrity of our journalism.
Factual, accurate journalism that is written, edited, and published in accordance with Times standards does not create a hostile workplace.
Every day, partisan actors seek to influence, attack, or discredit our work. We accept that. But what we don’t accept is what the Guild appears to be endorsing: A workplace in which any opinion or disagreement about Times coverage can be recast as a matter of “workplace conditions.”
Our duty is to be independent. We pursue the facts wherever they may lead. We are journalists, not activists. That line should be clear.
Debates over fairness and accuracy are perfectly reasonable. We understand and respect that the Guild has an absolute duty to offer representation to members when they are subject to discipline by management. But we do not think it is the role of our union to be engaged in – and taking sides in – public debates over internal editorial decisions.
Our hope is that the coming days will bring more constructive internal dialogue among Times employees and with Guild leadership that can help unify and improve our news organization. And we ask that our union work to advance, not erode, our journalistic independence.
The letter had quite a few signatories, including many of note. It retained that warm and fuzzy apologia language required of those who would never reply “bite me, asshole,” knowing how many tears would be shed and garments rendered by a terse, frank and clear reply. But after the required social justice posturing, a couple of succinct sentences say what they came to say.
Factual, accurate journalism that is written, edited, and published in accordance with Times standards does not create a hostile workplace.
and
Our duty is to be independent. We pursue the facts wherever they may lead. We are journalists, not activists. That line should be clear.
Does this mean the cry of “moral clarity” by the media elite is history, and they will once again strive for objective and accurate reporting, including facts and legitimate arguments that challenge woke virtue? Will James Bennett be offered his job back as editorial page editor? Not likely. But neither the management of the New York Times, nor even its delicately treading journalists, bent over the wash and massage the feet of the unduly passionate. It’s a start on the long walk back to principles, facts and accuracy in the media. When the only reply needed is “bite me, asshole,” you will know they’ve scaled the mountain.
No comments:
Post a Comment