"...with its opinion pages increasingly reflecting the priorities of younger, more ideologically uniform staff and readership. Paul’s exit...might reflect an institutional recalibration to align more closely with progressive consensus"
That's true about the staff, but not the readership. On every Times article about gender that allows comments, they are usually 10:1 against whatever cult nonsense is being reported on.
The Times' own survey showed that even most Democrats are opposed to males in female sports (67%) and medical transition for minors (54%). Unfortunately the authors of the article about the poll ignored the sports results, the most newsworthy item in the poll given that all but 2 Democrats in the House had just voted in favor of allowing males in female sports and another key vote is coming up in the Senate.
Here's the link to the poll results. Trans questions are on page 14:
I hope we find out what really happened. I received an email reply from her about a year ago when her NYTimes piece came out in the same 24 hour period as my book was released. I have not been able to communicate with her since.
Do we know that she was fired or pushed out, as opposed to leaving in her own? If she left for personal reasons, that would not reflect any change in strategy at the Times. If she was forced out, I shudder to think of how bad things will get!
On one hand it makes sense from a cutthroat labor-cost-cutting perspective: she's been there awhile which means her salary is high relative to the new hires thus making her expensive to keep; on the other hand, reading between the lines in the NY Mag story, especially that quote from Opinion Editor Kingsbury, it appears that ideology was part of the reason.
When New York Times' staff went too far in protesting an article that challenged trans orthodoxy a few years ago, top management chastised them for elevating ideology over journalistic values of objectivity and nonpartisanship. The union was especially active in stoking the protests.
It's doubtful the staff, if they're still there, have changed their pro-trans views. Now that Trump has come out with an executive order to curb the excesses of trans activism, the kids at the Times may bring "resistance" mindset to their work. They can be counted on to employ disingenuous methods of suppressing inconvenient facts and opinion, including slanting the news.
"...with its opinion pages increasingly reflecting the priorities of younger, more ideologically uniform staff and readership. Paul’s exit...might reflect an institutional recalibration to align more closely with progressive consensus"
That's true about the staff, but not the readership. On every Times article about gender that allows comments, they are usually 10:1 against whatever cult nonsense is being reported on.
The Times' own survey showed that even most Democrats are opposed to males in female sports (67%) and medical transition for minors (54%). Unfortunately the authors of the article about the poll ignored the sports results, the most newsworthy item in the poll given that all but 2 Democrats in the House had just voted in favor of allowing males in female sports and another key vote is coming up in the Senate.
Here's the link to the poll results. Trans questions are on page 14:
https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/f548560f100205ef/e656ddda-full.pdf
A reminder of the NYT on gender issues prior to Ms. Paul:
https://www.pittparents.com/p/to-the-new-york-times-what-happened
I am grateful for her brave, thorough and accurate reporting!!
Her articles have been incredibly important in shedding light on what is happening.
They were exactly aligned with and in support of the stated mission of the New York Times.
The truth
Thank you for this thoughtful, beautifully written tribute to Pamela Paul.
Susan as always thank you for your kind words.
Susan as always thanks for reading and your kind words.
I hope we find out what really happened. I received an email reply from her about a year ago when her NYTimes piece came out in the same 24 hour period as my book was released. I have not been able to communicate with her since.
Do we know that she was fired or pushed out, as opposed to leaving in her own? If she left for personal reasons, that would not reflect any change in strategy at the Times. If she was forced out, I shudder to think of how bad things will get!
Pushed out, according to NY Mag, ostensibly as a part of job cuts:
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/pamela-paul-is-out-at-the-times-opinion-section.html
On one hand it makes sense from a cutthroat labor-cost-cutting perspective: she's been there awhile which means her salary is high relative to the new hires thus making her expensive to keep; on the other hand, reading between the lines in the NY Mag story, especially that quote from Opinion Editor Kingsbury, it appears that ideology was part of the reason.
When New York Times' staff went too far in protesting an article that challenged trans orthodoxy a few years ago, top management chastised them for elevating ideology over journalistic values of objectivity and nonpartisanship. The union was especially active in stoking the protests.
It's doubtful the staff, if they're still there, have changed their pro-trans views. Now that Trump has come out with an executive order to curb the excesses of trans activism, the kids at the Times may bring "resistance" mindset to their work. They can be counted on to employ disingenuous methods of suppressing inconvenient facts and opinion, including slanting the news.
I complained to Kathleen Kingsbury and cc'ed Pamela Paul:
kathleen.kingsbury@nytimes.com
pamela.paul@nytimes.com