• ryven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    80
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    Silverstein said Hughes also violated the policy earlier in the year, when she signed an open letter protesting the Times’s coverage of transgender issues. “She and I discussed that her desire to stake out this kind of public position and join in public protests isn’t compatible with being a journalist at The Times, and we both came to the conclusion that she should resign,” he wrote in the email.

    It seems having a spine isn’t compatible with being a journalist at the Times.

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well, “anywhere where they expect their journalists to present a neutral point of view or the appearance of it” would be more appropriate than saying it’s something that only applies to The Times… Journalists know they’re risking their career by doing something like what happened here. 8t might lead them to become columnists instead, as happened with a local TV journalist that decided to write a letter criticizing a controversial bill and to submit it for publishing in a journal, she lost her job and started writing books and opinion pieces instead.

      • gastationsushi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        You believe the right wing op ed writers at the times could ever get fired for their opinions? Bari Weiss was making mid 6 figures posting trash on the NYT before she accused her employer of discrimination to jump start coverage of her new substack.

        Everyone is biased, it’s how the brain operates. Some biases try to reflect reality while others try to manipulate people to believe propaganda. The Times is perfectly fine employing propagandists.

  • drphungky@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    It’s wild that we live in such polarized times that every single comment in this thread is talking about how this is wrong because of some variant of “she’s being fired for calling it like it is.”

    That’s not what happened. She was fired (forced to resign, same difference) because she went on record with a political viewpoint and made value judgements. YOU DONT GET TO DO THAT AS A JOURNALIST. It doesn’t matter if she’s right (she is, in my opinion, before someone accused me of supporting apartheid and misses the point). What matters is she has taken away any appearance of being unbiased, both for her and by association for the paper. It’s crazy damaging and the Times should have fired her instead of letting her resign. This is like journalistic ethics 101. My parents were both journalists and wouldn’t even talk to me about who they voted for - and they weren’t even in hard news.

    I know these days there are so many biased news agencies and lots of opinions masquerading as news, but for hard news agencies this kind of thing does not, and should not fly. The woman was dumb and I hope she was ready for a career writing op-eds and being a partisan talking head, because she’ll never write hard news at a reputable source again.

      • drphungky@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Then you get a spot writing op-eds so you can dunk on strawmen who don’t have the reach or voice to argue with you!

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    The New York Times announced in a note to staff Friday that a writer for its magazine resigned after violating newsroom policy by signing an open letter that accused Israel of trying to “conduct genocide against the Palestinian people.”

    Jazmine Hughes, who joined the paper in 2015 and has won multiple national awards, was one of the most prominent names on a statement published last week by a group called Writers Against the War on Gaza.

    “While I respect that she has strong convictions, this was a clear violation of The Times’s policy on public protest,” magazine editor Jake Silverstein wrote in an email to staff Friday evening.

    Hughes has won a string of accolades while working as a writer and editor at the Times, including a National Magazine Award in March for profiles on Viola Davis and Whoopi Goldberg.

    The Israel-Gaza war has forced many institutions to contend with members who feel strongly about the conflict, which involves a long history of Israeli occupation and deadly military reprisals on Palestinian territory.

    David Velasco was ousted as editor in chief at Artforum after the arts publication posted an open letter that supported Palestinian liberation and called for a cease-fire.


    The original article contains 591 words, the summary contains 199 words. Saved 66%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • Kusimulkku@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    “While I respect that she has strong convictions, this was a clear violation of The Times’s policy on public protest,” magazine editor Jake Silverstein wrote in an email to staff Friday evening. “This policy, which I fully support, is an important part of our commitment to independence.”

    Silverstein said Hughes also violated the policy earlier in the year

    I get that it’s a policy many disagree with but breaking it twice, yeah you’ll get fired (or forced to resign I guess)

    • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are plenty of Jewish people that are loudly protesting the war. I find it’s irresponsible speculation that you’re assuming he came to this decision based upon the fact that he’s Jewish. Be better than that

      • Draghetta@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        1 year ago

        That comment may have been in poor taste but that ain’t antisemitism friend.

        Jews normally have a strong sense of belonging and identity, and while a lot of Jews are opposed to the Israel government it’s not at all out of place for somebody with a clearly Jewish name to be biased towards the Jewish side of a conflict. You could be forgiven for thinking that.

        Change the context a little bit - this is now a story about the Falklands war and somebody named “Barry Bugglesworth” is strongly on the British side. Are you surprised?

        Now I’m not saying the guy was right. Generalising is inappropriate and generally not a sign of great intelligence, but it’s not antisemitism just because it’s targeted towards a Jewish person.

        Antisemitism is a powerful word, let’s not wear it out.

        • lmaydev@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Negatively generalising the Jewish people is literally antisemitism. Like by definition.

          • Draghetta@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It looks like the comment thread disappeared so this will probably be a private answer. Whatever. No, accusing a Jew of supporting Israel is not a NEGATIVE generalisation unless you think supporting Israel is a universally negative feature. So no, still not antisemitism.

            • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              It was stereotyping/profiling based on a name. It’s flagrant anti-semitism. If someone’s last name is a traditionally Palestinian name should we assume they hate Jewish people too?

              The british example is terrible because they do not have a history of being persecuted for being British. Same reason calling someone a cracker isn’t the same as the n word.

        • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          This is stereotyping/profiling based on a name. It’s flagrant anti-semitism. If someone’s last name is a traditionally Palestinian name should we assume they hate Jewish people too?

          The british example is terrible because they do not have a history of being persecuted for being British. Same reason calling someone a cracker isn’t the same as the n word.