Yesterday I discussed a very long article in The Economist (17,000 words!) by New York Times op-ed editor James Bennet, who was fired from the paper (“euphemistically: “asked to resign”) after publishing an op-ed piece by Republican Senator Tom Cotton. Cotton’s piece called for bringing in the military should post-George-Floyd demonstrations turn violent, and Times staffers (and the general public) said that such a wicked op-ed made them feel “unsafe.”
Bennet went into detail about how he was first supported by NYT publisher A. G. Sulzberger and executive editor Dean Baquet, but when the ranks of Offended Staff grew too numerous and too loud, Bennet had to go. The hypocrisy of the spineless Sulzberger is stunning, but Bennet also describes why the NYT has become so biased and woke, and how its editorial stance—”progressive”—has crept into both the news and the Sunday Magazine. It was a scathing indictment.
Sulzberger had recently published a long take on his ideal of journalism in The Columbia Journalism Review (I haven’t read it, but found it here), yet apparently his ideals are quite at variance with the reality of the paper he heads. Here, for example, is Sulzberger’s last paragraph in that essay:
It is Americans themselves who will need to insist that there is a future for independent journalism. Amid all the distraction, confusion, and chaos of the digital world, it’s more important than ever that citizens develop relationships with news organizations that inform and challenge them, commit to finding a daily place in their lives for independent journalism, and use it to expand, not merely reinforce, their worldview. If the press holds fast to journalistic independence, I am confident that over time more people—of all backgrounds and perspectives—will come to see the value of journalists serving as fair-minded guides through a complex world at a consequential moment.
“Fair-minded guides” and “expanding rather than reinforcing a worldview” is the opposite of the tendentious reporting that Bennet described, and you can vouch for the paper’s bias simply by reading it.
Now, however, apparently stung by Bennet’s piece, the Mighty Sulzberger has replied to the criticism in the pages of his very own paper. Click below to see his short NYT response:
Here’s his response in its entirety:
James Bennet and I have always agreed on the importance of independent journalism, the challenges it faces in today’s more polarized world, and the mission of The Times to pursue independence even when the path of less resistance might be to give into partisan passions.
But I could not disagree more strongly with the false narrative he has constructed about The Times.
Our commitment to independence is evident in our report every day. Whether in the wars in Europe and in the Middle East, the turmoil on college campuses, or the political mood of the country on the eve of another election year, our 2,000 journalists are breaking stories, holding the powerful to account, and seeking to shed light rather than heat on the most divisive issues of our time, regardless of whom our coverage might upset.
Our readers now also have the benefit of an Opinion report that has grown in size and ambition since 2020 and has only expanded upon its commitment to exploring a wide range of viewpoints. Today we have a far more diverse mix of opinions, including more conservative and heterodox voices, than ever before.
James was a valued partner, but where I parted ways with him is on how to deliver on these values. Principles alone are not enough. Execution matters. Leadership matters.
This is hogwash. The opinion section is still largely (at least 75%) pretty Left, there are only a couple of conservative columnists, and remember what I quoted yesterday from Bennet:
The Times’s failure to honour its own stated principles of openness to a range of views was particularly hard on the handful of conservative writers, some of whom would complain about being flyspecked and abused by colleagues. One day when I relayed a conservative’s concern about double standards to Sulzberger, he lost his patience. He told me to inform the complaining conservative that that’s just how it was: there was a double standard and he should get used to it. A publication that promises its readers to stand apart from politics should not have different standards for different writers based on their politics. But I delivered the message. There are many things I regret about my tenure as editorial-page editor. That is the only act of which I am ashamed.
And here’s Bennet’s description of how he parted ways with the paper:
Like me, Baquet seemed taken aback by the criticism that Times readers shouldn’t hear what Cotton had to say. Cotton had a lot of influence with the White House, Baquet noted, and he could well be making his argument directly to the president, Donald Trump. Readers should know about it. Cotton was also a possible future contender for the White House himself, Baquet added. And, besides, Cotton was far from alone: lots of Americans agreed with him—most of them, according to some polls. “Are we truly so precious?” Baquet asked again, with a note of wonder and frustration.
The answer, it turned out, was yes. Less than three days later, on Saturday morning, Sulzberger called me at home and, with an icy anger that still puzzles and saddens me, demanded my resignation. I got mad, too, and said he’d have to fire me. I thought better of that later. I called him back and agreed to resign, flattering myself that I was being noble.
Given that Bennet was forced to leave is hardly under question, and the fact he was asked to leave makes hash of Sulzie’s protestations. A publisher should have spine enough to stand up to the staff’s and social media’s outcry. For if you read Cotton’s editorial, you’ll find that it’s neither odious nor harmful—it’s simply a conservative view that many in America shared. But it was HARMFUL
It’s also telling that Sulzberger’s response to Bennet does not contest any of Bennet’s facts, but simply glowingly affirms how wonderful and dedicated the NYT is. It’s an exercise in back-patting, not self defense. Pardon me if I believe Bennet rather than Sulzberger.
h/t: Rosemary
Spectacular hypocrisy. Does Sulzberger read the NYT?
Here’s a tip for Sulzie:
How the WSJ handled its own woke tantrum:
============================
[The Times could learn something from the Wall Street Journal, which has kept its journalistic poise. It has maintained a stricter separation between its news and opinion journalism, including its cultural criticism, and that has protected the integrity of its work. After I was chased out of the Times, Journal reporters and other staff attempted a similar assault on their opinion department. Some 280 of them signed a letter listing pieces they found offensive and demanding changes in how their opinion colleagues approached their work. “Their anxieties aren’t our responsibility,” shrugged the Journal’s editorial board in a note to readers after the letter was leaked. “The signers report to the news editors or other parts of the business.” The editorial added, in case anyone missed the point, “We are not the New York Times.” That was the end of it.]
(Quoted from Bennet’s piece in the Economist)
https://web.archive.org/web/20231215044152/https://www.economist.com/1843/2023/12/14/when-the-new-york-times-lost-its-way
“Their anxieties aren’t our responsibility.”
A succinct, effective rejoinder to so much of the silliness we are now forced to endure.
The Op-Ed pages are not so much the problem, far more insidious is the prevalent bias of the “news” pages.
Here in Brazil people on the right side of political spectrum, which represent +50% of voters, are saying: “companies, artists and businesses that opt to take one side (left wing) rather than being independent, should rely on same mind consumers”. So we are seeing a huge boycott to brands, artists shows, companies and businesses in general who choose to be “woke”. They are suffering and complaining in the social media and lots of them started to regret their criticism of those who “dare” to have a different view of the world. In the end, we should not take right nor left sides, we ought all to want to walk straight ahead to evolve 🙂
+1
Odd the Sulzberger expresses the paper’s commitment to “independence,” and only secondarily talks about “seeking to shed light rather than heat.” Neither of those addresses the charges that Bennett makes.
Coincidentally, on Friday the NY Times was forced to make a correction to a story about Hunter Biden:
Must have been noise on the line at the moment HB said, “financially”. The diligent Times typists must have spent many long seconds trying to decipher the garbled word, then said, “Screw it, can’t have been important. It’s only an adverb.”
Re Mr. Sulzberger’s view of his actions and the his paper: He is very likely telling the truth as he sees it. Nasa has a clear rules on incident and accident investigations which is that you never investigate yourself. There must always be an independent panel of experts. When doing strategic planning, an organization must include its bigger critics in the process; otherwise you are just talking to yourself. As a matter of fact, Mr. Sulzberger’s immediate and very strong response seems to reinforce Mr. Bennett’s position rather than refute it….by Mr. Sulzberger’s own actions as opposed to his words. (If I may pile on)
Sulzberger’s response to Bennett reminds me of the now notorious university presidents’ response to campus antisemitism: a kind of death-bed conversion to free speech, or something free speechy.
BTW, David French, latest Times conservative, has been criticized by other conservatives as writing as if a progressive’s idea of what a nice conservative should be.
+1
Sulzberger: “But I could not disagree more strongly with the false narrative he has constructed about The Times.”
Exactly what is a “false” narrative? If Bennett told lies, specify. If not, what is meaningfully “false” about his narrative?
There are plenty of rags that Cotton could spill his venom. He is writing an opinion piece, after all. He isn’t stating any new facts that could be censored only a set of values that are inflammatory.
He sent it to the Times and they printed it. Are you objecting to the Times printing that conservative op-ed? And of course what you say is what anybody would say who wanted to censor a conservative op-ed: it was ALL OPINION. But that doesn’t mean it was therefore dumb: IT WAS HIS IDEA THAT PEOPLE COULD ARGUE WITH.
I don’t think you understand what op-ed columns are supposed to be about. That suggestion had not been made in the NYT before. Let people argue about it.
Thank you Jerry for including a link to Cotton’s piece, allowing your readers to re-read it and make their own assessment.
Cotton’s op-ed “called for Donald Trump to deploy troops to suppress looters taking advantage of the riots that followed the murder of George Floyd in May 2020.” (The Times, of London, England, Dec 16, 2023)
Just a reminder about the looting:
It caused insured losses of $2bn+ (1 billion = 1000 millions). These insured losses are a lower bound for the caused damage given that some damaged businesses did not have insurance while others were underinsured.
Source for the insured losses figure: page 4 of this document:
Also, it so happens that most American people dislike looting and wanton property destruction. So you are wrong to claim that Cotton’s op-ed stated “a set of values that are inflammatory” (your words). Cotton’s idea for minimizing looting and wanton property destruction was in the political mainstream of the US.
The response by Sulzberger doesn’t address the specifics of the accusation, it’s just generalized pablum. It doesn’t engage. Ever since ChatGPT I’ve developed a new sensitivity to words that sound nice but don’t say anything, glib words with no connection to any reality. Sulzberger’s words sound like they were produced by an AI.
Sulzberger use of the lines “Execution matters” and “leadership matters” are really odd to me and not a strong rhetorical closing. The Harvard president tried “words matter” and it worked for her, but it seems like grabbing “Black lives matter” and repurposing it for any argument, where you say “ XXX matters” and act like it’s self-evident that you’ve won the debate. I wish Christopher Hitchens could weigh in.