I supposed that should have read “former New York Times editor Bari Weiss.” Until her resignation today, from 2017 to 2020, Weiss was the staff editor for the opinion section of the The New York Times.
Her letter of resignation to the Times publisher is here. It is beyond excellent, beyond brave, beyond important. It is breathtaking.
She writes in part,
I joined the paper with gratitude and optimism three years ago. I was hired with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of The Times as their home. The reason for this effort was clear: The paper’s failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn’t have a firm grasp of the country it covers…
But the lessons that ought to have followed the election—lessons about the importance of understanding other Americans, the necessity of resisting tribalism, and the centrality of the free exchange of ideas to a democratic society—have not been learned. Instead, a new consensus has emerged in the press, but perhaps especially at this paper: that truth isn’t a process of collective discovery, but an orthodoxy already known to an enlightened few whose job is to inform everyone else…
Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.
My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” ….some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one… Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are….
I do not understand how you have allowed this kind of behavior to go on inside your company in full view of the paper’s entire staff and the public…Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery.
… the truth is that intellectual curiosity—let alone risk-taking—is now a liability at The Times. Why edit something challenging to our readers, or write something bold only to go through the numbing process of making it ideologically kosher, when we can assure ourselves of job security (and clicks) by publishing our 4000th op-ed arguing that Donald Trump is a unique danger to the country and the world?
Do read it all.
Maybe Weiss’s bold and unquestionably true letter is the metaphorical slap in the face of the mainstream media that will make journalists realize that they have squandered their credibility, destroyed the trust that the citizens of a republic must have for the principles of responsible democracy to work, and shredded their own professional ethics standards, leaving nothing but bias, greed and rationalizations in their place.
Maybe, having been forced to face their betrayal of the American people, journalists will confront the disastrous choices they have made since 2016 and before, take a courageous and merciless inventory of their flaws, mistakes and misconduct, and following necessary and courageous reforms, lead U.S. journalism to a new Golden Era of fairness, diligence, objectivity, and honesty.
Right.
Nonetheless, thank you, Ms. Weiss. It is both gratifying and encouraging to have the conclusions reached here regarding American journalism and discussed at length during the past four years confirmed by an insider.
Ethics Alarms 
If Biden wins in November, I think they’ll just congratulate themselves for having led the country back to the truth,
It’s just that kind of talk Steve-O-in-NJ that will land you an early seat in the re-education camp.
Oh I’m too dangerous, an outspoken conservative like me. If I’m lucky I’ll be put against a wall and shot. If they want to play with me they’ll probably waterboard me to say “Every Republican president was a criminal,” “Hillary was the most qualified candidate ever,” and other tropes before being hanged (you know your bowels loosen and you have a massive erection and involuntarily ejaculate when they do that), drawn and quartered. Maybe they’ll impale what’s left of my body along the road into NYC, with the Blue Lives Matter flag stuffed into my mouth and the Italian tricolor stuffed up my backside as a message to other would-be righties that this is what awaits you if you disobey the dictates of the leadership.
The Times posted an article on Bari Weiss’s complaints. From the comment section:
“Talk about illiberal and bullying, Ms Weiss always pounced on anyone who had any kind of criticism of Israel, accusing them of anti-semitism. Her idea of fighting anti-semitism is to suppress any criticism of or action against Israel or any support for Palestinians.”
“When Bari Weiss was a student at Columbia she was involved in numerous campaigns to vilify and ruin the careers of several Arab and Muslim professors due to their criticisms of Israel. She smeared Professor Joseph Massad as an antisemite and demanded that he be fired.”
It is not possible — it is ‘illegal’ effectively — not only to criticize Israel but to question America’s investment in Israel, support of it militarily, and certainly to question or even talk about the fact of Jewish American influence within government to forward pro-Zionist policies. Indeed there are many many writers out there who assert — their arguments are coherent — that Jewish pro-Zionists through Neo-Conservative activists have influences American policy to instigate some of the wars we are now engaged in.
But are you allowed to speak in depth about these things? And could you (that is here, on this blog and with a so-called Conservative environment) be able to speak freely and honestly about these things?
Of course the answer is no! And in your way you also work hard to suppress those who have ideas different from your own. You-pl also resort to the use of the terms ‘Nazi’ and ‘Racist’ and ‘Misogynist’ and a whole range of blanket labels when it serves your purposes of shutting down conversation you do not like.
My point? That there is tremendous ideological confusion in our present. There is (and there has been) lots of suppression within the conservative camp of these ideas it feels are intolerable. But now — and this will only continue — the entire conversation is opening up. There are a whole range of suppressed topic that are now going to be talked about.
Your *blame & shame* routines will be challenged.
“the right is obsessed with its imagined victimization, which consists of being angry when people tell them that right wing beliefs are harmful to children and other living things across the planet. the right is without ideas, without plans, without justice, and without compassion; the right is morally, ethically, and socially bankrupt. those are just facts.”
Well, I notice a similar emotional response among so-called Conservatives. But the fact is that you and they do not know what is harmful and what is not harmful. That is where the conversation must focus. For example is it harmful or non-harmful to the nation of the US that it radically shifted its immigration policy in 1965? Who defines what ‘harm’ is? Or who can see the fuller dimension? That is just one example.
What about your nation being turned into and contributing to turning THE WORLD into a Globo-Homo Culture? And when you — as so-called Conservatives — support the entire gamut of progressive policy, by and large, cannot this be talked about openly and criticized? What about the fact that Conservatism has become, in fact, what liberal progressivism was just a few years back?
But the question here is really that of ‘harm’. This is a philosophical question and it requires a philosophical response.
What is interesting about Weiss’s letter is that, at least, it opens the conversation to the degree of controlled and coerced thought that exists in America today. It has infected everyone, to one degree or another.
The reasons why this controlled thinking have become ubiquitous, though, have not been revealed.
So happy that it is being challenged and attacked. I feel VINDICATED! 🙂
Brilliant.
I’m still boggled by how an American conservative or centrist writing op-eds about the Jews can be called a Nazi.
We must have a different definition of Nazi in the U.S. than everyone else does.
Her comment in the article about Twitter being on the masthead figuratively is no surprise to me either. I’m tired of clicking on articles only to find that the content is largely cribbed from nobodies (or celebrities) on Twitter. Instead of writing an article of substance, the writers allow these modern-day Man on the Street messages to count as product.
If what she says is true about her working environment, then I am amazed at the casual anti-Semitism and racism that’s expressed at the NYT. No modern corporation I ever represented would allow that kind of interaction among its workforce–it’s a plaintiff-side employment lawyer’s dream. I think the situation reflects what others here have said–the people she is describing believe that they are untouchable and the law doesn’t apply to them because they hold the right opinions and associate with the right people. Because they are the cognitive elite theycouldn’t possibly be racist, or anti-Semitic, or anti-Christian, or sexist. I am really hoping she goes after the Times for creating and fostering a hostile work environment. It is hard to imagine a better description of such a place. Yikes.
“I am amazed at the casual anti-Semitism and racism that’s expressed at the NYT”
I’m not. Really… I’m not.
Progressives do not care about anti-Semitism, they care about being able to use Jews as a discriminated class to bludgeon their political opponents with, not having the self awareness to realize that the worst actors are beside them. And then, once it’s pointed out that someone of the people besides them are RAVING anti-Semites (Louis Farrakhan comes immediately to mind), they carry water for them, if they don’t just ignore you. I refuse to listen to the left on the profile of Semitic issues until they stop fawning over or electing bigots like Farrakhan, Sarsour and Omar.
They. Do. Not. Care. Pretending that they do gives them about 617,910 times more credit than they deserve. They. Are. Hypocrites.
Progressives don’t really care about ANY minority. They DO care about using minorities as pawns to move their agenda forward. That’s why FDR pushed through Columbus Day as a Federal holiday, he needed the Italian-American vote, and that’s now why Democratic politicians almost everywhere are now trying to wipe it off the calendar and push Indigenous People’s Day instead. It’s not about the Italian-Americans suddenly being revealed as racist or evil, and it’s not about how great the Indians are or justice for them. There are just more votes to be had by pandering to the woke who all read Howard Zinn than by continuing to support the Italian-Americans. It doesn’t end there, either. Progressives don’t really care about children either, unless they can hitch their wagon to them to press for more money for their nea supporters, or point to their dead bodies to push gun control. It’s all about who can they use and how can they use them.
The Left (generally, and as far as I have read) is often anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian. It is forced to that position for sound reasons, reasons internal to its logic. It is not at all an unsound or *outrageous* position. There are Israeli Jews who are 1,000 times more critical of Israel than the American Left generally is.
Here, among *yous*, you have shown me that you cannot in any sense have a critique either of Israel or of what I call ‘Jewish machinations’ in America. I know about these, many in Israel know about these, and yet yous cannot even talk about these things. Why is that? Why do you have such a conformist mind-set? And why are you so darn quick to condemn others who, for various reasons not the least being ethical considerations, seek to push the conversation open?
Your unthinking *philo-Semitism* (as it might be called) could be critiqued in and of itself.
You have your *favorite enemies* that you trot out here to parade for your argument, such that it is. But when it comes to critical ideas that really & truly cut toward the heart of the matter — for example the work of Kevin MacDonald (Culture of Critique) and E Michael Jones (The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit) you show ytour self effectively closed-minded and interested in shutting down the conversation and keeping it shut out.
It is funny to me to watch yous fall over yours-selves to lionize Weiss. The *beam* is still in your own eye though.
It will, bit by bit, be removed. Then just imagine how you will *see* the world! Glorious days are ahead.
“Here, among *yous*, you have shown me that you cannot in any sense have a critique either of Israel or of what I call ‘Jewish machinations’ in America. I know about these, many in Israel know about these, and yet yous cannot even talk about these things. Why is that? Why do you have such a conformist mind-set? And why are you so darn quick to condemn others who, for various reasons not the least being ethical considerations, seek to push the conversation open?”
Because it’s *incredibly* selective. Of all the nations on Earth that have hostile relations with their neighbors, border disputes, and human rights issues, it’s amazingly coincidental to me that time and time again, the Nation the left seems overly occupied with is the one filled with Jews.
It fails all tests of reason, by what possible metric could you choose to focus primarily on Israel while ignoring, or even actively carrying water for Iran, North Korea, Russia or China? I don’t listen to many “anti-zionist” arguments because I don’t think they’re coming from a place of honesty. The same people making critiques of Israel are the people who say things like “Jews control the weather, and that keeps black people in metro areas down” (real example, we’ve talked about it here).
If I believed for a second that you actually had a principled position, I might. Those conversations *can* be had, and had honestly, and frankly they need to be had… Not everything Israel does is good or ethical. But I’m certainly not going to entertain these arguments from the Brazilian chapter of the Hitler youth. Those conversations that need to be had, do not need to be had with you.
What you present to me here, just now, is what I refer to as a *structure of lies*. You set up these false assertions and *make it* my position. I do not ask you to stop nor to modify what you do! I only wish to be given the liberty to point it out.
Because it’s *incredibly* selective. Of all the nations on Earth that have hostile relations with their neighbors, border disputes, and human rights issues, it’s amazingly coincidental to me that time and time again, the Nation the left seems overly occupied with is the one filled with Jews.
Yes, of course, I understand that argument. I have heard it before and have, even, used it myself. But even if that were true (unnatural fixation on a critique of Israel especially) it does not change the facts of the matter.
It fails all tests of reason, by what possible metric could you choose to focus primarily on Israel while ignoring, or even actively carrying water for Iran, North Korea, Russia or China?
This is also a false argument. Some of them carry water as you say for those nations or any other nation and cause. But this has nothing to do with the essential issues.
If I believed for a second that you actually had a principled position, I might.
This is another false-argument. No matter what idea I have or present, they will always be described to you as ‘unprincipled’. You assert with this statetement that you know what ‘principled’ is and means. You possess it. You define it.
And this is one of the major blind-spots I notice in you, in Jack certainly, in Steve of NJ, and in some others: you assume you have *right* on your side.
But this is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the way that the FULL CONVERSATION, the entirety of the conversation, is kept closed within certain parameters.
I am drawing a comparison to what Weiss notices in her Left-Radical opponents (as they seem to be) and what I notice dealing with *yous*.
It is really quite simple. It is also very *human* and rather typical. We tend to notice the evil *the other* does — Look there! See! Hate it along with me! — and we fail to be able to see our own.
What I call for is the complete opening of the conversation in all its dimensions.
Ready? 🙂
Not particularly. I know you *really* want to have those conversations, but I don’t particularly care what you want.
You might notice a trend with my responses to you that I don’t really engage you on the conversations you want to have. Not only I admit I do that, I do it purposefully. You are miserable to engage with. You are morbidly verbese, and I could forgive that if you ever actually said what you meant, but it’s like you have a cognitive disability that prevents you from actually stating your case, deigning instead to peddle in veiled allusions to “great truths” that for whatever ephemeral reason you cannot put to ink, despite a willingness to dump thousands of words to print. I don’t engage with you because it’s useless. I don’t engage with you because you do not engage. You just write… shit. And sometimes, it’s shit that needs a dose of reality, but I don’t need to have a multi-layered conversation with you to do that, I can just point out you’re full of shit.
I won’t weigh in on the discussion, other than to note that I like “morbidly verbese” very, very much.
Oh but that is all just more of the the same. You said years ago: “Speak in terms that I understand . . . or get bent!”
You literally do not undertand what is going on in the world.
But you give me an advantage that I appreciate to some degree: I can critique the substance of your *ideas* (such as they are), and you must remain essentially silent.
Oh Arthur . . . you could have said “. . . very, very, very, VERY VERY much” and it would have been more effective.
You are now on my list ….. 🙂
Whatever you say, mein fraulen. I await the consequences of being listicled with bated breath.
That was directed to Arthur, you narcissist!
[Technically *frau* BTW.]
And I was reacting simply in praise of the turn of phrase, not the discussion itself, and would have noted same regardless of whom it was directed towards. It’s clever and amusing.
Besides, every time I see one of your posts I scroll down to check its length. Brief, and I’ll go back and read it. Long, and I won’t. I just haven’t found the long ones worth the effort or time. So I have no clue what you’re arguing in this one… nor do I particularly care.
Well then I forgive you. Go with God my child . . .
The NYT doesn’t have a great reputation when it comes to Jews, in particular, during WWII when the paper was neglegent in reporting what was happening in Europe.
“It took the paper two days and two jobs to say that the Tom Cotton op-ed “fell short of our standards.” We attached an editor’s note on a travel story about Jaffa shortly after it was published because it “failed to touch on important aspects of Jaffa’s makeup and its history.” But there is still none appended to Cheryl Strayed’s fawning interview with the writer Alice Walker, a proud anti-Semite who believes in lizard Illuminati. “
It was brave, but probably career-ending. That’s why she deserves ethics hero status.
Oh, she’ll get a job somewhere, but there are no left-of-center places on the Internet with the reach of the Times that is even with an astronomical unit of her brand of “moderate.”
Maybe, since Andrew Sullivan just left New York Magazine, they’ll try to hire her. I predict she doesn’t last the year if so.
Weiss is a writer without a country. Not near left enough for any major media publication, nor close enough to the center for any on the right. Well, that’s life in the 2nd decade of the 21st century. Reminds me of one of Mr. Miyagi of “The Karate Kid” explaining life to Daniel LaRusso:
That squishing sound you hear is Barri Weiss.
She’s got a lot of contacts and supporters, Glenn. I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see her launch her own site or publication.
That assumes, of course, that the Times doesn’t have her killed.
Oh, I’m sure she’ll find something to do. But in a year, nobody will remember who she is.
“We must have a different definition of Nazi in the U.S. than everyone else does.”
No, this is out of Soviet disinformation. The Soviets fought the fascists, therefore anyone who opposed the Soviets is a fascist, even if he happened to be a traditional liberal who opposed both communists and fascists.
I’m hoping that Weiss and others will consider creating a paper or platform that’s for those who are more intellectually curious.
She mentioned a while back on a podcast how cruelly her co-workers talked about her on Slack. She really was brave to just keep going and her example shows the rest of us we can endure, if the mob, like a pack of dogs, begins to growl.
Here’s the podcast:
http://wethefifth.com/episodes/187-bari-ataleoftwokarens-section
“. . . shows the rest of us we can endure, if the mob, like a pack of dogs, begins to growl.”
So true! That growling though, and that pack! is scary nonetheless.
I’m tracking this, and it might generate a post sooner or later, but the Times’ mainstream media allies in bias have been extremely muted in reporting this so far, if they are reporting it at all. The Washington Post has a story, but little commentary. What can they say, though? Kathleen Kingsbury, acting editorial page editor of the Times, said in a statement,
“We appreciate the many contributions that Bari made to Times Opinion. I’m personally committed to ensuring that The Times continues to publish voices, experiences and viewpoints from across the political spectrum in the Opinion report. We see every day how impactful and important that approach is, especially through the outsized influence The Times’s opinion journalism has on the national conversation.”
“Bias? What bias?” She might as well have said, “huminahumina…”! The comments that oppose Weiss just show how right she is, like this quoted in the Post story,
“If your entire brand is that you’re going to say the things you think people don’t want said, then it’s completely disingenuous to act surprised when there’s blowback,” tweeted journalist and web publisher Elizabeth Spiers. “Or to suggest that it’s somehow unfair, as if everyone owes you their silence.”
What “people” don’t want dissenting opinions “said”? Spiers, a progressive shill, illustrates exactly what Weiss is talking about.
“We appreciate the many contributions that Bari made to Times Opinion. I’m personally committed to ensuring that The Times continues to publish voices, experiences and viewpoints from across the political spectrum in the Opinion report. We see every day how impactful and important that approach is, especially through the outsized influence The Times’s opinion journalism has on the national conversation.”
Translation from Authentic Frontier Gibberish to English: “Our readers don’t want anything but woke leftist opinion, and neither does our staff. In the interest of keeping the peace, and keeping the woke Twitter mob’s genitalia out of our Cheerios, we’re happy to see her go.
We may not know what we’re talking about or have any interest in the objective truth, but we do know where our bread is buttered. Peace, out.”
Wow. This is my shocked face. There’s person, a woman no less, of the thirty-something or so age group in the northeast (and who’s graduated from a journalism school!) who isn’t an arrogant barking seal? I’m completely amazed.
I would assume she’ll have lots of job offers. She could be the new Selena Zito.
Correction. She appears not to be a journalism school grad, which may rub the mob at The Times the wrong way. She graduated FROM Columbia University with a degree in history.
From reviewing her wiki page, it appears she’ll just be discounted, written off and ignored by the Left as an annoying, conservative Jew.
Weiss wrote: “All this bodes ill, especially for independent-minded young writers and editors paying close attention to what they’ll have to do to advance in their careers. Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you’ll be hung out to dry.”
Doubleplusungoodthink, inside the Times’ bubble. But still, dittos Other Bill: WOW.
“Institutional anti-intellectualism,” perhaps, is a “corporate value” at the Times? Too bad, that the term doesn’t quite roll off one’s lips like “institutional racism” does.
Wishing all the best to Bari Weiss.
And the leftist bubble-dwellers accuse so many of US of being “science deniers.” HAH!
I posted Weiss’s resignation letter to my FB page, and several prog friends are already trying to destroy her. I expect to see more of that.
Yeah, but how? Denial? Calling her a traitor to the Revolution? At this point, what she said in her letter is in the res ipsa loquitur category.
One friend posted a 2018 Intercept article by Glenn Greenwald as an attempt to indicate Weiss didn’t deserve to work at the NYT in the first place.
Though Greenwald is clearly no fan of Weiss, he’s also one of a tiny handful of left wing/progressive journalists who has had the vision and integrity to see what’s really going on in media and the courage to write about it (the only other one who comes to mind is Matt Taibbi). I sincerely hope Greenwald weighs in on this issue. He may still not care for Weiss, but as you say: this is res ipsa loquitur on the part of the Times, and if he DOES opine I’d lay good odds he’ll give Weiss at least a grudging nod of support.
“…some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one…”
This is my favorite line of all. Being “inclusive” means getting rid of someone.
We have always been at war with Eastasia.
–Dwayne
Inclusive means including only those the woe mob wants included, and kicking everyone else out.
I applaud her resignation letter to her editors. But, why did she leave out the elephant in the room? Why didn’t she criticize them for their support of the blindingly cynical and simply wrong assumption of the “1619 Project”? The NYT’s amended description of that project does nothing to clarify that the underlying assumptions of the project are flat out false but it bear the imprimatur of what’s left of the NYT’s credibility.
jvb
Her comment about inventing history was widely seen as a reference to the 1619 debacle.I assumed that’s what she was referring to.
I can’t speak as to her mindset, but I would assume that while the 1619 seems like a big issue to us, for someone escaping a toxic work environment, it’s probably a couple of rungs down the priority ladder. That, coupled with the fact that she didn’t want to make the letter 17,642 pages long, meant that she had to pick the battles that meant most to her.
Between Ghislaine and Bari, the Clinton Suicide Squad is going to have to put in overtime.
Spare us.. Bari “rights for me, but the US citizen can only exist as slaves on my Marxist plantation slavery fiefdom” Weiss is just another Marxist who might have gotten in the way of the Marxists deemed more helpful to the Marxist p1mp5 over them. She got what she deserved as she has done the same to others. More like her need to be served up but still the congenital disease she is a part of won’t stop.
I don’t know much about Weiss, nor do I care. I have independent confirmation of all but what she reported as the treatment of her personally. Attacking a message by attacking the messenger is pure ad hominem. The value of the letter, from a Times editor and “the paper of record” is crucial. It wouldn’t matter if she were white slaver—the letter was spot-on, and the first time anyone within the Times has broken ranks so clearly.
That is a good point: Weiss represents an ideal position and a stance where it is said it is possible to state the truth, and that it is possible to serve it, and that one can if one chooses to turn away from the tendency to lie, deceive, play internecine power politic games.
But to point out her hypocrisy . . . or to indicate that *others* may also be compromised within hypocritical positions is also necessary and good.
Weiss studied history, is a feminist, but I see no specific indication that she is a Marxist.
In keeping with my general orientation, and definitely in keeping with my sense of wars between differing ideological perspectives, it is crucial to examine a person’s biography (in this case hers). But if one is going to make some sort of condemning statement . . . it will have to be better and more informative than to say she is a ‘Marxist’.
I like ‘unhinged Zionist’ myself. 😉
The other thing about Weiss is that she may go the route of people like Dave Rubin and Bret Weinsten: liberal Jews who are pushed out of *sensible centrist positions* and pushed over to the so-called ‘Right’. Rubin and Weinstein found an alternative money-generating route by giving highly attended lectures that become sort of like intellectual sporting events. Weiss could remake herself in a similar vein.
https://share.par.pw/post/84c5873ce8944ac1b971357a995e87fa letter from Parler to Bari Weiss…
You’ll have to cut and paste the letter into a comment for me to read it. Parler screwed with me when I tried to sign up, and the don’t get a second chance.