The News Guild of New York weighed in with a reminder that “employees are protected in collectively raising concerns that conditions of their employment constitute a hostile working environment.”Īnd that precipitated a ferocious, unctuous response from many of the most senior, established, and comfortable reporters in the Times newsroom. The response from management was to breezily dismiss those concerns as coming from “activists” - and to forcefully forbid any further “attacks on colleagues on social media and other public forums.” ![]() They do the lecturing, thank you very much. ![]() Jack Mirkinson did an absolutely brilliant job of reminding us of that legacy in The Nation.īut senior Times reporters and editors do not like being lectured on journalistic ethics. The letter raised serious and specific concerns about disparaging coverage of gender-affirming care - concerns that every journalist at the New York Times should heed, at the risk of going down the same infamous path the Times did covering gay rights and AIDS. That rift is what lies at the heart of a blistering back-and-forth that began with a letter from some Times contributors strongly condemning negative bias in reporting about transgender, non-binary, and gender nonconforming people. The purpose of great journalism, it is often said, is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.īut at the New York Times, the newsroom is increasingly riven between the comfortable and the afflicted within its own ranks.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |