The opinions expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of RedState.com.
In a world of authentic ecological disasters curiously ignored by the usual suspects, untold billions poured into proxy wars plus not a few coins thrown into conflicts placing American soldiers in harm’s way, and economic havoc on the home front, it is refreshing to note the intrepid journalists at the New York Times remain laser-focused on today’s top news story. Namely, an endless fascination with gazing upon the magnificence that is their own navel.
The latest episode comes from a back-and-forth between Times staff and editors regarding Our Grey Lady of the Peeling Paint’s coverage of … drum roll, please, as this is The Most Important Story of Our Time … transgender issues. As the New York Post mentioned on February 15th:
An open letter signed by nearly 200 contributors and advocates accused the Gray Lady of stoking fears by treating “gender diversity with an eerily familiar mix of pseudoscience and euphemistic, charged language while publishing reporting on trans children that omits relevant information about its sources” in recent years.
Translation: We find your insufficient wokeness disturbing.
Amazingly enough, on February 16th the Times clapped back.
Yesterday, The New York Times received a letter delivered by GLAAD, an advocacy group, criticizing coverage in The Times of transgender issues.
It is not unusual for outside groups to critique our coverage or to rally supporters to seek to influence our journalism. In this case, however, members of our staff and contributors to The Times joined the effort. Their protest letter included direct attacks on several of our colleagues, singling them out by name.
Participation in such a campaign is against the letter and spirit of our ethics policy. That policy prohibits our journalists from aligning themselves with advocacy groups and joining protest actions on matters of public policy. We also have a clear policy prohibiting Times journalists from attacking one another’s journalism publicly or signaling their support for such attacks.
Our coverage of transgender issues, including the specific pieces singled out for attack, is important, deeply reported, and sensitively written. The journalists who produced those stories nonetheless have endured months of attacks, harassment and threats. The letter also ignores The Times’ strong commitment to covering all aspects of transgender issues, including the life experience of transgender people and the prejudice and violence against them in our society. A full list of our coverage can be viewed here, and any review shows that the allegations this group is making are demonstrably false.
We realize these are difficult issues that profoundly affect many colleagues personally, including some colleagues who are themselves transgender. We have welcomed and will continue to invite discussion, criticism and robust debate about our coverage. Even when we don’t agree, constructive criticism from colleagues who care, delivered respectfully and through the right channels, strengthens our report.
We do not welcome, and will not tolerate, participation by Times journalists in protests organized by advocacy groups or attacks on colleagues on social media and other public forums.
We live in an era when journalists regularly come under fire for doing solid and essential work. We are committed to protecting and supporting them. Their work distinguishes this institution, and makes us proud.
New York Times executive editor Joe Kahn signed the letter.
It needs to be clarified what fueled various Times personnel to channel their inner Felicia Sonmez.
The letter specifically calls out Emily Bazelon’s June 2022 NYT Magazine article “The Battle Over Gender Therapy” for referring to a child’s secret gender-affirming care as “patient zero” and for quoting expert sources it says “have since expressed regret over their work’s misrepresentation.”
The letter also mentions a feature piece published last month by Katie Baker titled “When Students Change Gender Identity and Parents Don’t Know,” which discusses legal challenges faced by schools when students change their identity without their parents’ knowledge.
Presumably, opinion columnist Pamela Paul’s “In Defense of J.K. Rowling” column also had something to do with this surfacing now instead of back when the “offending” articles were released, although since the column’s publication took place the day after the NYT received the GLAAD letter, either someone at the organization leaked the column well before publication, or its ranks include one mightily skilled fortuneteller. There’s also the possibility the rainbow underwear warriors have said knickers in a knot over David French joining the Times in January 2023, thus proving none of them have ever read a word Supersquish has said or else they’d know everything in the known universe is Trump and white evangelical America’s fault.
It is safe to bet Kahn’s letter was a shot across the bow at staff, all of whom are easily replaceable with another batch of hardcore leftist writers fresh from being laid off at any number of failing “news” publications, publicly venting their vent ? la the aforementioned Ms. Sonmez. The notion of the NYT being anti-transgender ranks alongside John Fetterman being in the pink of health as beliefs requiring near-lethal illicit substance amounts coursing through the bloodstream to embrace. Still, when your entire world revolves around you and your hypersensitive hysteria the moment someone looks at your sacred cow cross-eyed, it is to be expected.
No one expects journalism from the New York Times. That said, when you push matters so far even it has to state via a method it surely knew would go public, “Cool it, kids,” it is a clear sign of how utterly lacking in self-awareness mono track advocates are of their own sadly amusing shortcomings.