>
More than a dozen top New York Times reporters have signed a letter attacking their own union for endorsing staff members who criticized the outlet’s coverage of transgender issues.
The latest letter, written by correspondent Jeremy Peters, was sent Tuesday and accused the newspaper’s union, known as his guild, of effectively stifling journalistic independence.
It’s the latest chapter in a saga that began last week, when 1,000 current and former writers blasted the Times for its increasingly skeptical coverage of transgender issues in an open letter.
Executive editor Joe Kahn responded to last week’s letter by emailing staff telling them they should not participate in “protests organized by advocacy groups.”
They noted that engaging in “such a campaign is against the letter and spirit of our ethics policy.” Some unnamed employees are said to have been penalized for signing the letter.
News Guild of New York President Susan DeCarava later sent a letter to her members in the Times, on a private mailing list, saying that the employees who wrote the letter are protected from a “hostile work environment.”
But in his letter on Tuesday, Peters argued that the union was getting unduly involved in editorial decisions and stifling “journalistic independence.”
New York Times contributor Jeremy Peters, left, published a letter criticizing The News Guild of New York President Susan DeCarava, right, for saying staffers who criticize The Times’ coverage of transgender issues they are protected from a “hostile work environment.”
The New York Times was accused by some of its own writers and contributors of a “bias” approach in reporting on the trans rights debate.
Peter’s letter, and the Times’s defense of journalism, marks a remarkable shift for a newspaper whose bosses were once seen as intimidated by the insistence of wise-cracking staff on covering controversial social stories in a skewed way that matched their own beliefs.
The whole dispute started last week over two separate letters mailed to the times.
The first was signed by current and former collaborators.
Meanwhile, GLAAD, the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, and the Human Rights Campaign coordinated a separate public letter signed by celebrities and activist groups condemning the New York Times’ “irresponsible and biased coverage of transgender people.”
They singled out the scientific team for particular condemnation, arguing that they had set out to “undermine support for transgender youth by writing ‘ask questions only’ stories about medically approved best practices for gender-affirming healthcare.”
And they criticized the opinion service for publishing articles by columnist Pamela Paul, insisting that The New York Times erred in giving “space to her unfounded thoughts about how LGBTQ people should describe themselves.”
Other letterAlso sent Wednesday, it was signed by 1,000 current and former contributors to the paper.
Recent stories about whether it is appropriate to give underage transgender children puberty blockers or mastectomies have angered Wake Times staff and supporters.
Another about whether it was right for teachers to hide students’ decision to change gender from parents sparked more furor, as did stories about whether transgender women should be allowed to compete against biological women in some sports.
Management quickly took umbrage at the protests, and Kahn wrote in an email to staff members that “participation in such a campaign is against the letter and spirit of our ethics policy,” he said.
‘That policy prohibits our journalists from aligning with advocacy groups and joining protest actions on public policy issues.
“We also have a clear policy that prohibits Times journalists from publicly attacking the journalism of others or showing support for such attacks.”
DeCarava subsequently posted a public letter on the Times listserv asserting the right of employees to criticize the newspaper. traffic light reports, saying that ’employees are protected by collectively raising concerns that the conditions of their employment constitute a hostile work environment.
“This was the concern explicitly raised in the letter in question here,” he said.
But some at the paper were upset by the union’s response, with one reporter, Stephanie Saul, posting on the union’s Slack: ‘Criticism of working conditions does not include attacking other members’ journalism.
“I strongly oppose this letter and hope that members of the unit agree with me.”
Joe Kahn, the executive editor of The New York Times, wrote to staff on Thursday telling them it is against the company’s ethics policy to participate in anti-company protests.
GLAAD parked a mobile billboard in front of The New York Times offices in Manhattan last Wednesday.
By Tuesday, Peters had written his letter to DeCarava, stating that the union does not understand “our responsibility as journalists” and expressing his desire that the union “work to promote, not erode, our journalistic independence.”
“Like you, we support the right to a non-hostile work environment where everyone is respected and supported,” he wrote. “We believe that The New York Times should never engage in biased or discriminatory practices of any kind.
“We all strive to be a part of a truly diverse news organization where everyone is treated fairly,” Peters continued. ‘We welcome robust and respectful critical feedback from colleagues, whether in direct conversation or through internal Times channels.
But your letter seems to suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of our responsibilities as journalists.
“Sadly, our own union leadership now seems intent on undermining the ethical and professional protections we rely on to protect the independence and integrity of our journalism,” Peters continued.
“Accurate, factual journalism that is written, edited and published according to Times standards does not create a hostile workplace,” he stated, noting: “Every day, partisan actors seek to influence, attack or discredit our work. . We accept that.
“But what we don’t accept is what the Union appears to be endorsing: a workplace where any opinion or disagreement about Times coverage can be recast as a ‘working conditions’ issue.
“Our duty is to be independent,” Peters said. We chase the facts wherever they lead us. We are journalists, not activists. That line must be clear.
Peters then went on to say that he and the others who signed the letter “understand and respect that the union has an absolute duty to provide representation to members when they are subject to disciplinary action by management.
‘But we do not believe it is the role of our union to participate and take sides in the public debate on internal editorial decisions.
“Our hope is that the days ahead will bring a more constructive internal dialogue between Times employees with Guild leadership that can help unify and improve our news organization,” Peters concluded. “And we ask that our union work to promote, not erode, our journalistic independence.”
The letter was signed by New York Times bigwigs, including White House correspondent Peter Baker; Washington correspondent Charlie Savage; media correspondent Michael Grynbaum and national correspondent Kate Zernike.
In a statement to vanity fairThe News Guild responded by saying that it is “committed to representing all members fairly and fairly, regardless of reporting assignment.”
‘We take no position on the issue of editorial coverage and fight hard for the right of all members to work in a healthy and safe environment, free from harassment and discrimination.
‘These are principles that are at the core of unions and are fundamental to our mission.’
He added that the letter from the New York Times bosses implied “that employees of The New York Times who have or choose to sign a public letter ie. om [art. critical of recent employment decisions and historic workplace conditions affecting LGBTQIA employees, could face discipline in doing so.
‘It would be a violation of federal law for the New York Times to threaten, restrain or coerce employees from engaging in such activity.
‘The journalists we represent at the New York Times, and across all of our union newsrooms understand the difficulty of navigating such rights to speak on different issues, and are aware that protecting those rights often includes defending members expressing a variety of viewpoints,’ the union continued.
‘It is our collective role to ensure members are protected when they raise concerns at work.’
The New York Times published an op-ed in defense of J.K. Rowling’s trans views a day after two open letters, signed by celebrities, campaign groups and hundreds of the paper’s own writers, accused the paper of bias in its reporting of trans issues
Meanwhile, editors at the Times do not seem to be giving in to the peer pressure — publishing an op-ed defending controversial author J.K. Rowling just one day after receiving the letters criticizing them for their coverage of transgender issues.
Former books editor Pamela Paul wrote the piece, entitled In Defense of J.K. Rowling.
She referred in her article to the new ‘The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling’ podcast by Megan Phelps-Roper – a former member of the notorious Westboro Baptist Church – based on nine hours of interviews with Rowling which explore her views and the backlash she faced.
The op-ed states: ‘As Rowling herself notes on the podcast, she’s written books where from the very first page, bullying and authoritarian behavior is held to be one of the worst of human ills’.
‘Those who accuse Rowling of punching down against her critics ignore the fact that she is sticking up for those who have silenced themselves to avoid the job loss, public vilification and threats to physical safety that other critics of recent gender orthodoxies have suffered.’