Former NYTimes Writer Describes ‘Bloodthirsty’ Colleagues Demanding Action On Controversial Op-Ed

A former New York Times staffer has revealed how his ‘bloodthirsty’ colleagues caused a meltdown inside the newsroom after the paper published a controversial op-ed.

An explosive interview with former Times writer Shawn McCreesh saw him describe a ‘Maoist struggle’ after the paper published an opinion piece by Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton in June 2020.

McCreesh made the revelations in a forthcoming book by author Steve Krakauer, where he details the internal revolt that led to the resignation of influential editorial page editor James Bennet in 2020.

Cotton’s op-ed, titled “Send in the Troops,” sparked a brutal riot within the organization after the Republican advocated for the National Guard to respond to the 2020 BLM riots.

NYT opinion editor James Bennett, pictured, was forced to publicly resign amid backlash to Cotton’s op-ed.

After the newspaper decided to publish Cotton’s controversial op-ed, many New York Times employees publicly criticized the paper for upsetting them.

Several staffers took to Twitter to criticize NYT executives for allowing the post, including Project 1619 creator Nikole Hannah-Jones, who said she was “deeply embarrassed.”

Amid fervent pressure and a hostile climate with riots across the country, Times Opinion Page editor James Bennett was forced to publicly resign.

According to excerpts from Krakauer’s book obtained by mediaite, McCreesh, who is now a feature writer for New York Magazine, said Cotton’s stance did far more damage than just Bennet’s resignation.

He said the New York Times newsroom was dramatically upended by major internal turmoil, where his former colleagues became “thirsty for blood.”

At a staff meeting to discuss Cotton’s op-ed, McCreesh said tech writer Charlie Warzel started crying in front of his colleagues because of the backlash.

He allegedly said that “none of his friends wanted to talk to him anymore because he worked for this horrible evil newspaper that would print this op-ed.”

A source revealed the internal protests that rocked the NYT newsroom after it published an opinion piece written by Arkansad Sen. Tom Cotton, pictured.

1619 Project creator Nikole Hannah-Jones, who said she was “deeply ashamed” of the paper after it published Cotton’s article.

NYT tech writer Charlie Warzel, pictured here, reportedly started crying in front of his colleagues because of Cotton’s op-ed, as his friends stopped talking to him “because he worked for this horrible evil newspaper that he would print.” Article.

Also alleged in the forthcoming book, titled ‘Uncovered: How the Media Got Comfortable with Power, Abandoned Its Principles, and Lost the People’, is that the leadership of the Times ‘completely lost its nerve’ due to the internal revolt.

Despite Bennet personally bringing in many of the staff, they turned on him and stabbed him in the back as the paper was filled with ‘angry muttering employees’ who lashed out at the editor for allowing the article to run.

McCreesh said: ‘There was a giant communal Slack chat for the whole company that became a kind of digital gallows.

“And all these angry, gossiping employees were gathering there and demanding that heads roll and the most bloodthirsty employees were these kind of weird tech and audio staff and then a bunch of people writing for the Arts and Hobbies section. , and that of Style”. section, and the magazine, which, in other words, you know, was nobody really covering any of the protests or the riots or the politics.

“It was kind of like a bunch of Twitter-brained nuts going crazy on Slack. And the leadership was so horrified by what was happening. They just completely lost their nerve.

After his resignation, Benned told Semafor that he felt he was being treated as an “incompetent fascist” simply for allowing Cotton to publish his article.

He said his only regret was not including an editor’s note in the article, but added that he “never apologized for publishing the article and still hasn’t.”

The New York Times has since attached an editor’s note to the article, acknowledging that “this essay received strong criticism from many readers and many colleagues at the Times.”

The paper says its decision to publish the article led to a “review” of its editing process, adding that it “concluded that the essay did not meet our standards and should not have been published.”

Both Bennet and Warzel reportedly declined to discuss the backlash with Krakaeur over his book detailing the ordeal.