I am pretty sure I predicted this, though I’m not going to trawl back through my posts to see for sure. Pamela Paul is a heterodox op-ed writer at the New York Times, tackling topics that you wouldn’t expect to see of a regular columnist save established “house conservatives” like Ross Douthat. But Paul wasn’t a designated “conservative writer.” She was a liber and was, for nine years, the editor of the NYT Book Review. I presume she was recruited to the op-ed section for both her writing ability and her depth of analysis. And she chose to take on controversial topics—apparently with a slant not to the paper’s liking.
And I bet they got someone whose work they didn’t expect. Here are some of her columns, shown just as screenshots. And these are just within the last year!
Of course she got pushback, though what came from inside the paper we don’t know (I bet it was of the nature that Bari Weiss got). Below we see a piece from The Hub arguing that Paul had no right to write about “scholasticide” or to point out that Gaza’s universities were assaulted by the IDF because they sat atop Hamas tunnels, had plenty of weapons inside, and because students were even taught to manufacture weapons. How dare she point that out? Look at the patronizing title by this misguided defender of terrorism who decries Israel’s “US-sponsored genocide.” “Do better,” my tuchas!
The columns above show her defending Israel, going after religion, criticizing the iconic Ta-Nehisi Coates, and, above all, criticizing gender-affirming care, writing about “desisters,” and—the ultimate blasphemy—defending J. K. Rowling! Heresy!
Is it any surprise that an elite white writer, with no protection of minority status, was given the pink slip? Although the NYT gives an unconvincing denial below, I don’t believe it for a minute. Paul wrote with passion, panache, and, above all, sensibility (read the Rowling column). And the NYT can’t have its “progressive” leftism criticized, not by a white liberal writer. So they parted ways. I predicted they’d deep-six her, but hoped against hope they wouldn’t. They did.
Read about it in the New York Magazine column below (archived here).
The piece (my bolding):
The New York Times Opinion section is negotiating the exit of columnist Pamela Paul, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter. Her impending departure is part of a handful of job cuts being made at the section. Last month, Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist who had been a part of Opinion since 2000, announced to much fanfare that he was leaving. Paul was made an Opinion columnist in 2022 after nearly a decade running the Book Review.
Her ouster is sure to raise eyebrows both within and outside the Times. The Opinion section has been the site of the paper’s fiercest culture war battles in recent years, most famously leading to the firing of editor James Bennet in 2020 over an op-ed by Senator Tom Cotton calling for the deployment of troops during the George Floyd protests. Since then, under Opinion editor Kathleen Kingsbury, management at the Times has labored mightily to show that it is open to a diversity of thought, an effort that appeared to be spearheaded by Paul, who has taken on challenging, contentious topics such as gender-affirming youth care.
Paul is admired by some of her colleagues for her willingness to buck liberal-left conventional wisdom. She has written a defense of J.K. Rowling and scrutinized the MeToo movement for overreach, while a recent column criticized the American Historical Society’s vote to condemn the ongoing “scholasticide” in Gaza. But others have said she does little more than produce rage bait, with what one Times staffer referred to as “intellectually lazy” positions. “It is a rarity inside the Times for someone to manage to make enemies on every desk they touch; Pamela is indeed a rarity,” one newsroom employee said. “She should have spent time making allies if she was going to be as divisive a figure as she was internally. But she didn’t put the time in there, or at least did not have the interest.”
I’m told, however, that Opinion’s decision to part ways with her is not because of her ideological positions. Kingsbury said, “We don’t discuss personnel matters, but any insinuation I make staffing or editorial decisions based solely on political viewpoints is false.”
Look at that weaselly explanation: she was not let go “based solely on political viewpoints.” Well, what about IN PART for political viewpoints?
Of course the NYT won’t clarify this further, but the “based solely on political viewpoints” part tells the tale. I loved Paul’s columns (she was supposed to be at our USC Ideology in Science conference, but somehow didn’t show up), and grew to like her as a person through her writing. Now she’s gone. What anodyne “progressive” writer will they replace her with. Some dispenser of religious bromides like Tish Harrison Warren, whose departure was something to celebrate?
h/t: Jez
The NYT continues to disappoint. I’m with Musk in that they are legacy media and that their editors can’t be trusted. This is a shame. Now we need to rely on other venues for long-form thought.
Their opinion section isn’t worth reading, except for Bret Stephens.
I don’t read their book reviews either: they pick books I have no interest in. The WSJ book reviews are much better (at least for me).
I cancelled my subscriptions to the NYT, Atlantic, and Washington Post. I might still be subscribed to the WSJ.
Yep. The WSJ is better.
The only honest media outlet is The Free Press. I would not be surprised to see Pamela Paul show up there in the future
You don’t have to be “with Musk” to be disappointed in this NY Times decision. In fact, it’s becoming difficult to imagine myself being “with Musk” on almost anything. He’s just an obscenely wealthy, emotionally erratic, incoherent megalomaniac, wallowing in alt-right politics, with a list of conflicts of interest a mile long (which is practically a job qualification with this Administration). I am hoping he’s on the next rocket ship to Mars – one-way, if possible.
That said, I enjoyed Ms. Paul’s pieces and will miss her.
While I am disappointed with Paul leaving the NYTs, I am more so by the majority of responses here, which seem to think one reads the NYTs or the WaPo primarily for the editorials and other opinion pieces. It’s a newspaper and still a very good, if not perfect one. Reading other sources which do not have news desks will not help you know what’s going on in the world, unless you think those other sources are reading the NYTs so their opinions are based on some facts. That’s crazy! Opinions are a dime a dozen these days and anyone who reads nothing else is awash in ignorance. Newspapers are not a dime a dozen and it is in all our interests that the NYTs and WaPo survive as national sources.
Sorry you’re disappointed but Paul, after all, is an op-ed columnist. And yes, the NYT has a conspiculously slanted take on the regular news (compare the WSJ if you want).
Newspapers survive based on their readers, and the Post is dying simply because it is woke and because its news lacks depth. I am not going to read a major paper just to keep it alive if it goes downhill.
The WaPo continues it’s excellent company town coverage of the federal government in ways not duplicated elsewhere and while the WSJ has excellent reporting, it’s sweep is limited compared to the NYTs, still the newspaper of record for those who want to know what’s going on in the world. Of course one shouldn’t support a bad newspaper, but if you think you can get similar reporting elsewhere you’re wrong. Remember also that good newspapers try to separate their editorial page from the news, but being human don’t always do that, even the best, but you will not find many stories of value and national, regional, or worldwide scope not covered by either of these.
One other thing – both these papers print retractions when necessary, something the partisan and opinionated almost never do.
Both papers’ coverage of Israel and the war in Gaza is very bad, and no, they are inaccurate or leave out many things there. I’m sorry, but the NYT and WaPo are slanted towards wokeness in their news, and their articles buttress that view.
I am not sure that both papers public retractions “when necessary”, as I’m not sure what “when necessary” means.
Like Fox news and Sky?
Just a goddamn outrage. I presume nothing can be done to save Paula except pray like Trish Harrison has recommended.
…but the “in part” bit tells the tale.”
I may have missed something, but wasn’t the “in part” bit your comment, not that of the NYT?
Yes, I was referring to the “based solely” thing. I’ll try to clarify it above.
‘Kingsbury said, “We don’t discuss personnel matters, but any insinuation I make staffing or editorial decisions based solely on political viewpoints is false.”
It seems the Times made an exception with James Bennett.
“I am pretty sure I predicted this”
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/06/01/pamela-paul/
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2024/11/14/pamela-paul-on-politics-and-transgender-issues/
Thanks. I’m glad you found that, but I am NOT glad to be right. She was good.
A few years ago, I dropped my daily hardcopy (delivered every morning around 0600 to my driveway in southeast VA) to the nyt because of their move to the illiberal left and the ever increasing expense of that paper. I switched to wapo (also delivered here each morning) which was much cheaper, had not yet turned into the pretty much woke rag it is today, and its Metro section carried Virginia political news. But These days, I really find little of interest to me in it; my wife usually only read the first section, but even she has become disenchanted since the election.
With the extreme cold and a coastal snow storm, we have not received a paper the past two days…and really have not missed it. We both have our favorite substacks we subscribe to and of course WEIT. Pretty sure that we will cancel wapo sometime this week and redirect that ever increasing amount of money to substack subscriptions for those we read often.
Maybe it is a generational cohort think, but it seems a shame to lose these two papers of record to ideology or at least to such a disagreeable ideology.
I know a lot of folks who have done as you have. I no longer subscribe to either. I wonder…will the response from the NYT and Wapo to these cancellations be:
A – to try to get back on the journalistic rails and be less ideological, or
B – double down and become even more ideological to target a smaller but possible more committed niche…
I think that the economics of the space they swim in now point to B, but I would like to be wrong.
Well, the Democratic Party sure chose B. Newspaper boards seem to chase (ineptly) money and the ideology of the publisher is a side effect. But once in place that ideology seems to know no bounds.
Very interesting: I just called and cancelled my wapo daily home delivery and think I was talking with a bot…just evaluating its responses. But I seem to be successfully cancelled…it matched the address I gave “her” to my name. Meanwhile, just got a lost leader offer from nyt for a dollar a week for a YEAR. But as appealing as the price is, we are staying strong here resisting buying (literally) into their craven ideology. Looks like we will be heading into new territory without our daily totem.
Fortuitous typo of the week: “lost leader”.
Yes, the NYT leadership surely does appear lost….
Good catch, Barbara. Either my typo or AI helping me out as I typed but did not proof read closely enough… but you are tight: it does make sense either way!
A less fortuitous typo: while reading it I was definitely neither drunk nor particularly frugal, ach aye. 🙂
“What anodyne “progressive” writer will they replace her with.”
That will be the tell. If they replace her with someone similarly heterodox, then perhaps there were issues other than her journalistic bravery and having the “wrong” opinions.
But I wouldn’t bet on it…
And then you had Eli Erlick denying that the NYT was a progressive newspaper (https://youtu.be/y_lTmyxQhvw?t=2132). Maybe now it is more to Erlick’s taste?
Well that is a shame.
I do remember the one about de-transitioners, and I must have read about it from this web site.
The part of this piece I found shoddy was “It is a rarity inside the Times for someone to manage to make enemies on every desk…” from an unnamed employee. That sounds like back stabbing gossip, not reporting. If she was dismissed because of her lack of interpersonal and office political skills, is this charge substantiated with anonymous quotes? She has been at the NYT since 2011 with a successful track record. But now she apparently is a horrible person who alienated herself out of a column. It could be true, it could be false, but it is a smear without evidence at this point.
The New York Magazine’s comment section is a chorus of people cheering the downfall of the intellectually vacuous TERF (accordingto them.). The article and especially the comments are another example of the antagonism in present political discourse.
Reading her writing she strikes me as pretty even-handed and honest. And I remember when NYMag chased Andrew Sullivan for not fitting in. Not being liked by these people seems like a badge of honor.
Pamela Paul’s articles were always a must read for me. This is such a sad development. I’d be curious to know who the unnamed Times staffer was that characterized Paul’s work as “intellectually lazy.” What an absurd claim! Paul routinely did in-depth reporting, interviews and analyses of primary sources for stories. Contrast her work with that of Friedman, Gessen, or Polgreen, writers with a long record of unevidenced claims and ideologically motivated speculations.
…and an example of why, after paying for the NYT for 25-ish years I cancelled my subscription a few years ago.
Sometimes great intuitions go downhill. Witness the now garbage BBC.
D.A.
NYC
Well, shit…I’m still absorbing all I can of Helen Joyce on YouTube. A pleasure to hear her speak, even if her message is disturbing. A fine example is her excellent interview with Richard Dawkins. I send the link to friends.
We all have our breaking points. If I hadn’t cancelled my subscription to the NYT that wretched Alina Chan column re SARS-CoV-2 origins, I certainly would have cancelled re Paula Paul.
Sorry that the NYT Paywall prevents me from reading the linked columns.
If I were a post-modern nihilist nitwit determined to burn the world down, to regress to a new Dark Ages, I’d set out to destroy western liberal democracy. How to undermine the scientific credibility and political cohesion of the always fragile Democratic Party…well, by golly, it turns out there really is a trans agenda. It came by stealth on the heels of the Civli Rights movement, women’s rights, gay rights. now it’s like — blow up any sense of reality.
How would one expect voters to accept the intricate and solid science underlying anthropognenic global warming, evolution, vaccine science, issues of viruses, microbes, public health — when the focus is now on pushing the preposterous delusion of biological trans-sexuality?
Well, exactly. If you are going to lie about something as obvious and straightforward as claiming that women can have penises, then I will assume that every other thing out of your mouth is a lie too.
Its creationist-level kookery.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see the creationists & right wing run wild with it, as in: God created man and woman — now, class, let’s see that the (woke) scientists say…and so forth, with respect to (fill in the blanks). I already viewed someone’s rant about: “The schools are lying to our children” and that was in the context of “gender education”. I think we’ve been blindsided by postmodernist school curricula.
It’s basically repackaged creationism or religion under another name. Wokies have reinvented religion.
Postmodernist transhumanistc gnostocism, as one of the other regular commenters would put it.
Much of what Paul wrote should have been covered in the NYTimes as actual news.
The Times has played court reporter to much of the transgender movement, etc for years. Paul time and again did the opposite by looking at its weak links.
The mainstream media and the political left are firmly committed to hardcore transgender ideology “Trans women are women.”
This is despite reader comments indicating that most people don’t believe this.
My theory is that they are convinced that this is the next big civil rights issue and those with dissenting opinions must be viewed as knuckle-dragging bigots.
So Pamela Paul is fired.
Regarding:
— My theory is that they are convinced that this is the next big civil rights issue and those with dissenting opinions must be viewed as knuckle-dragging bigots. —
This is what I’ve heard from Helen Joyce in at least one of her YouTube interviews. You may know of her (I mentioned here above). I’m going to go to one of the hip bookstores in town & order her book. (I doubt they’ll have it in stock.)
I’ve got her book on Kindle although I haven’t read it yet.
A friend suggested the following:
“If you have a second to say THANK YOU, I’m sure she’d appreciate it while her email still works:
pamela.paul@nytimes.com.”
I think Paul would enjoy hearing from other liberals-lefties that we support her.
Comment by Greg Mayer
Her regular column appears today, with no hint of an impending departure.
GCM
You’re so right about the Times’ consciously disingenuous statement. “Based solely on political viewpoints is false” could mean anything at all, up to and including “99% based on political viewpoints and 1% on body odor.”
I wouldn’t presume to know what happens behind the scenes at the NYT, but it’s worth noting that Paul Krugman left because (my words, not his) he got tired of the editors trying to tone down his liberal rantings to make them more balanced.
So that’s one piece of evidence against a ‘push to the left.’
https://www.cjr.org/analysis/paul-krugman-leaving-new-york-times-heavy-hand-editing-less-frequent-columns-newsletter.php
Also, FWIW, though I agree 100% with Pamela Paul on the issues, I’ve never found her writing to be that original or memorable. It’s sort of bland, to my taste.