Last week, The New York Times swiftly and publicly dismissed a letter from more than 1,000 Times contributors highlighting concerns with the paper’s coverage of transgender people. Within hours of receipt of the letter, which was delivered at the same time as a letter from advocacy groups led by GLAAD, Charlie Stadtlander, director of external newsroom communications, brushed off the contributors’ concerns. Inaccurately conflating their appeal with the GLAAD letter, Stadtlander appeared to dismiss both missives as non-journalistic advocacy and proclaimed that the “news stories criticized… reported deeply and empathetically on issues of care and well-being for trans teens and adults.” It was a rather conclusory response to the claim that said stories were not, in fact, reported deeply or with care.
Later that day, Times Executive Editor Joe Kahn sent an internal memo admonishing staff participation in the letter: “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.” Again, neither Kahn nor Stadtlander explained how the contributors’ letter was linked to an advocacy organization or what qualified as an attack on colleagues. But the message was clear — internal or external critique of coverage of trans people is advocacy; and advocacy is antithetical to journalism.
The following day, Thursday, the Times published a piece from columnist Pamela Paul entitled “In Defense of J.K. Rowling.” The title and timing together created a combination so on-the-nose it almost crossed over into satire. (This is, notably, not the first time Paul has taken to her column to defend anti-trans antagonism.) Among the most comically offensive lines in the piece was Paul’s announcement that “nothing Rowling has said qualifies as transphobic.” Apparently, Paul is the arbiter of what is transphobic, and, don’t worry, J.K. has done…
Read the full article here
