The New York Times Guild, the union of employees of the Paper of Record, tweeted a condemnation on Sundayof one of their own colleagues, op-ed columnist Bret Stephens.Their denunciationwas marred by humiliating typos and even more so by creepy and authoritarian censorship demands and petulant appeals to management for enforcement of company rules against other journalists. To say that this is bizarre behavior from a union of journalists, of all people,is towoefullyunderstate the case.
What angered the union today was an op-ed by Stephens on Friday which voiced numerous criticisms of the Pulitzer-Prize-winning 1619 Project, published last year by the New York Times Magazine and spearheaded by reporter Nikole Hannah-Jones. One of the Projects principal arguments was expressed by a now-silently-deleted sentence that introduced it: that the countrys true birth date is not 1776, as has long been widely believed, but rather late 1619, when, the article claims, the first African slaves arrived on U.S. soil.
Despite its Pulitzer, the 1619 Project has become a hotly contested political and academic controversy, with the Trump administration seeking to block attempts to integrate its assertions into school curriculums,while numerousscholars of history accuse it of radically distorting historical fact, with some, such as Brown Universitys Glenn Loury, calling on the Pulitzer Board to revoke its award. Scholars have also vocally criticized the Times for stealth edits of the articleskey claims long afterpublication, without even noting to readers that it made these substantive changes let aloneexplaining why it made them.
In sum, the still-raging political, historical, and journalistic debate over the 1619 Project has become a majorcontroversy. In his Friday column, Stephens addressed the controversy by first noting the Projects positive contributions and accomplishments,then reviewed in detail the critiques of historians and other scholars of its central claims, and then sided with its critics by arguing that for all of its virtues, buzz, spinoffs and a Pulitzer Prize the 1619 Project has failed.
Without weighing in on the merits of Stephens critiques, some of which I agree with and some of which I do not, it is hardly debatable that his discussing thisvibrant multi-pronged debate issquarely within his functionas a political op-ed writer at a national newspaper. Stephens himself explained that he took the unusual step of critiquing his ownemployerswork because the 1619 Projecthas become, partly by its design and partly because of avoidable mistakes, a focal point of the kind of intense national debate that columnists are supposed to cover, contending that avoiding writing about it out of collegial deference is to be derelict in our responsibility to participate insocietys significant disputes.
But his colleagues in the New York Times Guildevidentlydo not believe that he had any right to express his views on these debates. Indeed, they are indignant that he did so. In a barely-literate tweet that not once buttwice misspelled the word its as its not a trivial level of ignorance for writers with the worlds most influential newspaper the union denounced Stephensand the paper itself on these grounds:
It is a short tweet, as tweets go, buttheyimpressively managed to pack it with multiple ironies, fallacies, and decreestypical of the petty tyrant. Above all else, thisstatement, and the mentality it reflects, is profoundly unjournalistic.
To start with, this is a case of journalists using their union not to demand greater editorial freedom or journalistic independence something one would reasonably expect from a journalists union but demanding its opposite: that writers at the New York Times be prohibited by management from expressing their views and perspectives about the controversies surrounding the 1619 Project.In other words: they are demanding that their own journalistic colleagues be silenced and censored. What kind of journalists plead with management for greater restrictions on journalistic expression rather than fewer?
Apparently, the answer is New York Times journalists. Indeed, this is not the first time they have publicly implored corporate management to restrict the freedom of expression and editorial freedom of their journalistic colleagues. At the end of July, the Guild issued a series of demands, one of which was that sensitivity reads should happen at the beginning of the publication process, with compensation for those who do them.
For those not familiar with sensitivity reads: consider yourself fortunate. As the New York Times itself reported in 2017, sensitivity readershave been used by book publishers to gut books that have been criticized, in order tovet the narrative for harmful stereotypes and suggested changes. The Guardian explained in 2018that sensitivity readers are a rapidly growing industry in the book publishing world to weed out any implicit bias or potentially objectionable material not just in storylines but even in characters. It quoted the author Lionel Shriver about the obvious dangers: there is, she said, a thin line between combing through manuscripts for anything potentially objectionable to particular subgroups and overt political censorship.
As creepy as sensitivity readers are for fiction writing and other publishing fields, it is indescribably toxic for journalism,which necessarily questions or pokes at rather than bows to the most cherished, sacred pieties. For it to be worthwhile, it must publish material reporting and opinion pieces thatmight be potentially objectionable to all sorts of powerful factions, including culturally hegemonic liberals.
But thisis a function which the New York Times Union wants not merely to avoid fulfilling themselves but, far worse, to deny their fellow journalists. They crave a whole new layer of editorial hoop-jumping in order to get published, a cumbersome, repressive new protocol for drawing even moreconstraining lines around what can and cannot be said beyond the restrictions already imposed by the standard orthodoxies of the Times and their tone-flattening editorial restrictions.
When journalists exploit their unions not to demand better pay, improved benefits, enhanced job security or greater journalistic independence but instead as an instrument for censoring their own journalistic colleagues, then the concept of unions and journalism is wildly perverted.
Then there is the tattletale petulance embedded in the Unions complaint. In demanding enforcement of workplace rules by management against a fellow journalist they do not specify which sacred rule Stephens allegedly violated these union members sound more like Human Resources Assistant Managers or workplace informants than they do intrepid journalists. Since when do unions of any kind, but especially unions of journalists, unite to complain that corporate managers and their editorial bosses have been too lax in the enforcement of rulesgoverning what their underlings can and cannot say?
The hypocrisy of the Unions grievance is almost too glaring to even bother highlighting, and is the least ofits sins. The union members denounce Stephens and the paper forgoing after one of its [sic] own and then, in the next breath, publicly vilify their colleagues column because, in their erudite view, it reeks. This is the same union whose members, just a few months ago, quite flamboyantly staged a multi-day social media protest a quite public one ina fit of rage becausethe papers Opinion Editor, James Bennet, published an op-ed by U.S. Senator Tom Cotton advocating the deployment of the U.S. military to repress protests and riots in U.S. cities; Bennet lost his job in the fallout. And many of these same union members now posturing as solemn, righteous opponents of publicly going after ones colleagues notoriously mocked, scorned, ridiculed, and condemned, first privately and then publicly, another colleague, Bari Weiss, until she left the paper, citing these incessant attacks.
Clearly this is not a union that dislikes public condemnations of colleagues. Whatever principle is motivating them, that is plainly not it.
Ive long been a harsh criticof Stephens (and Weiss) journalism and opinion writing. But it would never occur to me to take steps to try to silence them. If they were my colleagues and published an article I disliked or expressed views I found pernicious, I certainly would not whine to management that they broke the rules and insist that they should not have been allowed to have expressed what they believe.
Thats because Im a journalist, and I know that journalism can have value only if it fosters divergent views and seeks to expand rather thanreduce the freedom of discourse and expression permitted by society and by employers. And whatever one wants to say about Stephens career and record of writing and Ive had a lot of negative things to say about it harshly critiquingyour own employers Pulitzer-winning series, one beloved by powerful media, political and cultural figures, is thetypeof challenge to power that many journalists who do nothing but spout pleasing, popular pieties love to preen as embodying.
Therehas never been a media outlet where I have worked or where I have been published that did not frequently also publish opinions with which I disagree and articles I dislike, including the one in which I am currently writing. I would readily use my platforms to critique what was published, but it would never even occur to me take steps to try to prevent publication or, worse, issue pitiful public entreaties to management that Something Be Done. If youare eager to constrict the boundaries of expression, why would you choosejournalism of all lines of work? Itd be like someone whobelieves space travel to be an immoral wasteof resources opting to becomean astronaut for NASA.
Perhaps these tawdry episodes should be unsurprising. After all, one major reason that social media companies which never wanted the obligation tocensorbut instead sought to be content-neutral platforms for the transmission of communications in the mold of AT&T turned into active speech regulators was because the public, often led by journalists, began demanding that they censor more. Some journalists even devotesignificant chunks of their careerto publicly complaining thatFacebook and Twitterare failing to enforce their rules by not censoring robustly enough.
A belief in the virtues of free expression was once a cornerstone of the journalistic spirit. Guilds and unions fought against editorial control, notdemandedgreater amountsbe imposed by management. They defended colleagues when they were accused by editorial or corporatebosses of rules violations, not publicly tattled and invited, even advocated for, workplace disciplinary measures.
But a belief in free expression is being rapidly eclipsed in many societal sectors by a belief in the virtues of top-down managerial censorship, silencing and enhanced workplace punishment for thought and speech transgressions. As this imperious but whiny New York Times Guildcondemnationreflects, this trend can be seen most vividly, and most destructively, in mainstream American journalism. Nothing guts the core function of journalism more than this mindset.
Update: Oct. 11, 2020, 8:40p.m. ETThe New York Times Guild moments ago deleted its tweet denouncing Stephens and the paper, and thenposted this:
Original post:
The New York Times Guild Once Again Demands Censorship Of Colleagues - The Intercept
- NRA case shows the Supreme Court must stop informal censorship - Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- Microsoft faces bipartisan criticism for alleged censorship on Bing in China - The Register - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- Is Fighting Misinformation Censorship? The Supreme Court Will Decide. - Reply All | Gimlet - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- The censorship industry and it's connection to Israel - JNS.org - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- How to improve Chinese TV? Better censorship, says top tellie-maker - The Register - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- Up First briefing: Putin wins Russian election; SCOTUS censorship case - NPR - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- Elon Musk calls X number one source of news in the worldand also a hardcore, player versus player platform - Fortune - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- Asking is not censorship: No First Amendment bar for government to talk to publishers - New York Daily News - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- X-Men: The Animated Series was defined by its censors - Polygon - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- Justice Jackson lambasted for 'concern' 1st Amendment could 'hamstring government' in COVID censorship hearing - Fox News - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- The Beginning of the End for the Censorship-Industrial Complex? - National Review - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- RFK Jr.: Government shouldnt have role in social media moderation - NewsNation Now - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- Self-Pollinating Narrator of 'Wishtree' Called 'Indoctrination,' Virginia District Group Read Canceled | Censorship News - News Letter Journal - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- This Country Can't Afford A SCOTUS Weak On Internet Censorship - The Federalist - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- Banning TikTok is just the first step to censorship - Point Park Globe - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- SCOTUS Ponders Whether Biden Administration Coerced Social Media Platforms To Censor Speech - Reason - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- In Virginia, Censors Attempt to Axe 'Wishtree' - Publishers Weekly - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- Elon Musk Says Moderation Is a Propaganda Word for Censorship About Offensive X Posts - Rolling Stone - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- Supreme Court Makes A Mockery Of Free Speech - The Federalist - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- No matter how you view TikTok, banning the platform would be censorship - The Daily Orange - March 24th, 2024 [March 24th, 2024]
- China must look beyond censorship and economic power to win hearts and minds - South China Morning Post - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- 'The View' Producers Forced To Censor Ana Navarro's Expletive As She Talks About Biden - Daily Caller - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- How China Censors Critics of the Economy - The New York Times - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- A Startup Allegedly 'Hacked the World.' Then Came the Censorshipand Now the Backlash - WIRED - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- Negative Takes on China's Economy Are Disappearing From the Internet - The Wall Street Journal - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- Let The Government Censor Away Through Agents It Controls, Say Cabal Of A.G.s To U.S. Supreme Court Wirepoints - Wirepoints - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- 14 Massachusetts colleges land on restrictive free speech list: Censorship and terrible policies - Boston Herald - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- The Association of Appin Training Centers is waging a global censorship campaign to stop you from reading these ... - MuckRock - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- Norway owns a part of Putin's propaganda and censorship machine - The Independent Barents Observer - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- Censorship? That's just obscene! | Opinion | register-herald.com - Beckley Register-Herald - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- Censorship in the West is the same as Mao's China, says Chinese dissident artist Ai Weiwei - Sky News - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- South Korean government reported to announce plans for smoking scene censorship from K-dramas and films at the ... - Sportskeeda - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- Prime Video's 'Expats' Was Filmed in Hong Kongbut You Can't Watch It There - TIME - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- ADF to 8th Circuit: Govt can't censor pro-life views - ADF Media - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- Fox News Forced To Censor Trump As He Rants About Gavin Newsom And Michelle Obama - Towleroad - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- NYC teachers will exchange notes on how to get around censorship to teach kids about the genocide in Gaza - New York Post - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- The GOP Has a Plan for Online Safety. It Involves Censoring LGBTQ Content. - The New Republic - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- Opinion: Need help finding a good book? Try one your 9th grader isn't allowed to read - Los Angeles Times - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- 'Gateway to Censorship': Journalist Bodies Express Concern Over Proposed Broadcasting Services Bill - The Wire - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- The Dangerous Pursuit of Journalism in Russia: A Harrowing Reality - Medriva - February 5th, 2024 [February 5th, 2024]
- Global censorship campaign raises alarms - Freedom of the Press Foundation - January 21st, 2024 [January 21st, 2024]
- Texas Library Censorship Attempt Struck Down By 5th Circuit - Above the Law - January 21st, 2024 [January 21st, 2024]
- Attacks, arrests, threats, censorship: The high risks of reporting the Israel-Gaza war - Committee to Protect Journalists - January 21st, 2024 [January 21st, 2024]
- South Sudan's Battle with Censorship: Removing Hateful News Articles - The Organization for World Peace - January 21st, 2024 [January 21st, 2024]
- Intimidation leading to censorship in Wisconsin school libraries - Milwaukee Journal Sentinel - January 21st, 2024 [January 21st, 2024]
- Censorship over Palestine: Holocaust Survivor Decries Repression After Talks in Germany Are Canceled - Democracy Now! - January 21st, 2024 [January 21st, 2024]
- As Legacy Media Continues in Decline, It Espouses Censorship More - Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence - January 21st, 2024 [January 21st, 2024]
- Trump Nomination: Pundit Expects Censorship, Calls for Riots - The Dallas Express - January 21st, 2024 [January 21st, 2024]
- Data Overwhelmingly Supports Libraries and Library Workers: Book Censorship News, January 5, 2024 - Book Riot - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- Blame adults these days for censorship - Times Higher Education - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- CNN admits it runs all Gaza coverage through bureau monitored by Israeli military censor - Salon - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- Does your Pa. school policy open the door to censorship? - phillyBurbs.com - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- Iran's internet price rises, and so does the fear of greater censorship - TechRadar - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- Report highlights censorship and repression of Palestine solidarity across Europe - Morning Star Online - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- 2024, the year that four billion go the polls - Index on Censorship - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- Government Internet censorship was imposed 196 times last year - 9to5Mac - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- In the shadows of self-censorship: The impact of the Cyber Security Act on Bangladeshs LGBTQ+ movement - Global Voices - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- Jeffrey Wright Says Studio Hired a Replacement Actor to Dub Him After He Refused to Censor the N-Word in a Film: Nah. Thats Not Happening - Variety - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- Comedian and musician Tom Smothers dies at 86: A victim of government and corporate censorship in the late 1960s - WSWS - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- Polish pavilion selection at Venice Biennale gets political as rejected artist cries censorship - Art Newspaper - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- Wartime censorship is necessary, but must be responsible - editorial - The Jerusalem Post - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- Jeffrey Wright Says a Replacement Actor Dubbed His Lines When He Refused to Censor the N-Word - PEOPLE - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- Judicial Watch Sues Biden Censorship Agency for Records Targeting Judicial Watch and Its President Tom Fitton - Judicial Watch - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- Jeffrey Wright Says He Refused To Censor The N-Word In Ride With The Devil & Walked Away From Dubbing Film - Deadline - January 5th, 2024 [January 5th, 2024]
- Academic Bias and Censorship Are Huge Problems, and We Can Prove It - National Review - January 4th, 2024 [January 4th, 2024]
- Laws banning semi-automatic weapons and library censorship to take effect in Illinois - Toronto Star - January 4th, 2024 [January 4th, 2024]
- Here Are The States Urging SCOTUS To Allow Biden Admin To Coordinate With Big Tech To Censor Online Speech - Daily Caller - January 4th, 2024 [January 4th, 2024]
- China Tries To Censor Data About Nearly 1 Billion People in Poverty - Newsweek - January 4th, 2024 [January 4th, 2024]
- Laws banning semi-automatic weapons and library censorship to take effect in Illinois - Firstpost - January 4th, 2024 [January 4th, 2024]
- Iowa School District removes over 70 books without following proper review procedures - Blogging Censorship - January 4th, 2024 [January 4th, 2024]
- Chinese election interference tests Taiwans capability to defend freedom of speech - Index on Censorship - January 4th, 2024 [January 4th, 2024]
- Laws banning semi-automatic weapons and library censorship to take effect in Illinois - Index-Journal - January 4th, 2024 [January 4th, 2024]
- Censorship and the case for institutional literacy - The Hill - December 20th, 2023 [December 20th, 2023]
- Release Of Aquaman And The Lost Kingdoms Dubbed Versions DELAYED Due To Censor Board - Times Now - December 20th, 2023 [December 20th, 2023]
- Gary Simmons on Censorship, Minstrelsy, and the Scourge of Art Fairs - Interview - December 20th, 2023 [December 20th, 2023]
- Jeff Crouere: Censorship is un-American; free speech is the answer - The Franklin Sun - December 20th, 2023 [December 20th, 2023]
- Mother Russia. Who is the face of Russian online censorship, scourge of Russian rappers and Gen-Z icon - . - December 20th, 2023 [December 20th, 2023]
- Why Middle East scholars are self-censoring in the wake of the Israel-Hamas war - NPR - December 20th, 2023 [December 20th, 2023]
- "Keeping Your Mouth Shut: Spiraling Self-Censorship in the United States" - Reason - December 20th, 2023 [December 20th, 2023]
- EU TARGETS Elon Musk's Twitter for MORE CENSORSHIP Over 'HAMAS PROPAGANDA': Rising Reacts - The Hill - December 20th, 2023 [December 20th, 2023]