Bari Weiss Home Current Page: Resignation Letter Bio Book Press Appearances Writing Contact
Dear A.G.,
It is with sadness that I write to tell you that I am resigning from The New York Times.
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. Dean Baquet and others have admitted as much on various occasions. The priority in Opinion was to help redress that critical shortcoming.
I was honored to be part of that effort, led by James Bennet. I am proud of my work as a writer and as an editor. Among those I helped bring to our pages: the Venezuelan dissident Wuilly Arteaga; the Iranian chess champion Dorsa Derakhshani; and the Hong Kong Christian democrat Derek Lam. Also: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Masih Alinejad, Zaina Arafat, Elna Baker, Rachael Denhollander, Matti Friedman, Nick Gillespie, Heather Heying, Randall Kennedy, Julius Krein, Monica Lewinsky, Glenn Loury, Jesse Singal, Ali Soufan, Chloe Valdary, Thomas Chatterton Williams, Wesley Yang, and many others.
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.
Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. 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.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. 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.
There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong.
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. And I certainly can’t square how you and other Times leaders have stood by while simultaneously praising me in private for my courage. Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery.
Part of me wishes I could say that my experience was unique. But 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? And so self-censorship has become the norm.
What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets.
Op-eds that would have easily been published just two years ago would now get an editor or a writer in serious trouble, if not fired. If a piece is perceived as likely to inspire backlash internally or on social media, the editor or writer avoids pitching it. If she feels strongly enough to suggest it, she is quickly steered to safer ground. And if, every now and then, she succeeds in getting a piece published that does not explicitly promote progressive causes, it happens only after every line is carefully massaged, negotiated and caveated.
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.
The paper of record is, more and more, the record of those living in a distant galaxy, one whose concerns are profoundly removed from the lives of most people. This is a galaxy in which, to choose just a few recent examples, the Soviet space program is lauded for its “diversity”; the doxxing of teenagers in the name of justice is condoned; and the worst caste systems in human history includes the United States alongside Nazi Germany.
Even now, I am confident that most people at The Times do not hold these views. Yet they are cowed by those who do. Why? Perhaps because they believe the ultimate goal is righteous. Perhaps because they believe that they will be granted protection if they nod along as the coin of our realm—language—is degraded in service to an ever-shifting laundry list of right causes. Perhaps because there are millions of unemployed people in this country and they feel lucky to have a job in a contracting industry.
Or perhaps it is because they know that, nowadays, standing up for principle at the paper does not win plaudits. It puts a target on your back. Too wise to post on Slack, they write to me privately about the “new McCarthyism” that has taken root at the paper of record.
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.
For these young writers and editors, there is one consolation. As places like The Times and other once-great journalistic institutions betray their standards and lose sight of their principles, Americans still hunger for news that is accurate, opinions that are vital, and debate that is sincere. I hear from these people every day. “An independent press is not a liberal ideal or a progressive ideal or a democratic ideal. It’s an American ideal,” you said a few years ago. I couldn’t agree more. America is a great country that deserves a great newspaper.
None of this means that some of the most talented journalists in the world don’t still labor for this newspaper. They do, which is what makes the illiberal environment especially heartbreaking. I will be, as ever, a dedicated reader of their work. But I can no longer do the work that you brought me here to do—the work that Adolph Ochs described in that famous 1896 statement: “to make of the columns of The New York Times a forum for the consideration of all questions of public importance, and to that end to invite intelligent discussion from all shades of opinion.”
Ochs’s idea is one of the best I’ve encountered. And I’ve always comforted myself with the notion that the best ideas win out. But ideas cannot win on their own. They need a voice. They need a hearing. Above all, they must be backed by people willing to live by them.
Bari Weiss' resignation letter proves New York Times engaging in 'outright censorship,' critic says
Scathing letter should send 'shockwaves through the world of journalism,' Brent Bozell says
By Brian Flood | Fox News
New York Times opinion editor resigns, alleges 'constant bullying by colleagues'
New York Times opinion columnist and editor Bari Weiss announced Tuesday she is leaving the paper, issuing a blistering resignation letter that some feel proves the Gray Lady is censoring diversity of thought.
“What this journalist has done is not just to indict, but to convict The New York Times of outright censorship,” Media Research Center founder Brent Bozell told Fox News. “If it doesn’t send shockwaves through the world of journalism, it’s because the world of journalism no longer has ethics.”
BARI WEISS QUITS NY TIMES, SAYS SHE WAS BULLIED BY COLLEAGUES IN SCATHING RESIGNATION LETTER
Weiss published the resignation letter she sent to Times publisher A.G. Sulzberger on her personal website, saying, "Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery." She wrote she was bullied by colleagues in an "illiberal environment,” “Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences” and "intellectual curiosity” is a liability at the Times, among a variety of other devastating feedback. New York Times opinion columnist and editor Bari Weiss announced Tuesday she is leaving the Gray Lady, saying she was bullied by colleagues.
New York Times opinion columnist and editor Bari Weiss announced Tuesday she is leaving the Gray Lady, saying she was bullied by colleagues.
Bozell doesn’t think the once-proud Times can restore credibility with its current leadership, pointing to the paper caving to social media backlash as evidence.
“I thought the most salient observation she made was to declare that it’s Twitter that is leading the news today, that reporters are looking at their Twitter feeds and determining what is or isn’t news based on that silly contraption,” Bozell said. “Twitter is ablaze with radical leftist propaganda which the New York Times is then taking as news.”
Last month, Weiss offered insight about the internal battle among her colleagues following the publishing of an op-ed written by Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark. that sparked a major backlash from its own staff with many taking to Twitter with their concerns and grievances.
NY TIMES ISSUES 'MEA CULPA,' SAYS TOM COTTON OP-ED ON GEORGE FLOYD RIOTS 'RUSHED,' FAILED TO MEET STANDARDS
“Twitter hated what Senator Cotton had to say, and therefore, The New York Times genuflected,” Bozell said. “She is making the salient point that journalism is dead at The New York Times and it’s been replaced by censorship that is controlled by radicals.”
“She is making the salient point that journalism is dead at The New York Times and it’s been replaced by censorship that is controlled by radicals.” — Brent Bozell
After backlash for running Cotton's piece, the Times eventually offered a mea culpa and Editorial Page Editor James Bennet resigned as a result, all while Weiss claimed that a "civil war" was brewing within the paper.
“Weiss hit the nail on the head when she said that Twitter has become the editor of the Times. The paper’s treatment of the Tom Cotton op-ed was proof that it is only interested in placating the online mob that wishes to silence its political opponents,” Spectator USA Washington editor Amber Athey told Fox News, noting that her publication recently advertised it is “not” the New York Times.
TRUMP JR., TED CRUZ AMONG CONSERVATIVES CELEBRATING WEISS' NY TIMES RESIGNATION LETTER
“Media consumers are desperate to find content that challenges them rather than just confirms their preexisting worldview,” Athey added.
DePauw University professor and media critic Jeffrey McCall told Fox News that Weiss’ letter “provides yet another window to the mindset of journalistic ideology and advocacy” at Times. He feels that Weiss’ claims need to be vetted and verified, but the picture she painted is consistent the paper’s coverage in recent years.
“It's unmistakable crusaderism for left-of-center causes reflects a narrowing of debate in the public sphere, which is dangerous for the journalism industry and public deliberation generally,” McCall said.
“The New York Times is perhaps the key agenda-setter for the rest of the news industry in the United States, and that is a serious responsibility. Weiss contends that the Times is narrowing that agenda for discourse and that is very concerning,” McCall said. “This is a time when Americans need a wide range of ideas to discuss and it is sad that a major news outlet is choosing to restrict the flow of ideas and dialogue. There is, indeed, a backhanded sort of censorship going on here.”
Weiss’ resignation quickly lit up Twitter, where many were aghast that she would blowtorch bridges on her way out the door.
While some were shocked by Weiss’ scathing letter, Cornell Law School professor and media critic William A. Jacobson feels anyone paying attention to the Gray Lady should have known the paper has a lefty agenda.
"Liberalism at the NY Times is illiberal and intolerant. Water also is wet. Bari Weiss confirms what conservatives already knew, but liberals like Weiss previously refused to see,” Jacobson told Fox News. “The vicious social justice warfare culture has moved from campus to newsrooms, and there is no place for old-fashioned liberals like Weiss.”
Acting editorial page editor Kathleen Kingsbury provided a statement to Fox News when Weiss published her resignation letter.
“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,” Kingsbury said. “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.”
Andrew Yang, who complained about unfair representation among liberal news outlets during his candidacy for president, emphasized that he felt similar to Weiss by sharing a tweet from a supporter who suggested that the climate of the New York Times adversely affected Yang's opportunity to compete in the Democratic primary process.
"I certainly don't agree with @bariweiss on every issue, but this is a stunningly honest and very insightful breakdown of everything that's wrong with the American media," wrote Twitter account Tearo. "#YangGang watched the unfortunate real life consequences of this industry."
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.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers.
Not surprised by this. It's what the left has become.
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.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers.
Not surprised by this. It's what the left has become.
It’s people calling out others for what they stand for. What’s the big deal? You stand with Nazi’s you’re going to be called a Nazi. You stand with racist’s you’re going to be called a racist. You stand with fascists you’re going to be called a fascist. You stand with Putin you’re going to be called a communist. It’s pretty simple. Just because most people don’t support those stances don’t go all snowflake by lumping everyone in the alt left you claim exists.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Thomas Jefferson.
Anybody remember what fish was saying about Shepard smith when he bounced from Fox News?
Something about RINO, should work at cnn or msnbc, blah blah blah.
Guess how much this resignation is gonna matter in the big picture: zero.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Sure, and the opposite was heard from folks with a more liberal lean.
Admittedly, I believe I remember hearing more shock than anything that a talking head from Fox actually showed evidence of a spine.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
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.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers.
Not surprised by this. It's what the left has become.
It’s people calling out others for what they stand for. What’s the big deal? You stand with Nazi’s you’re going to be called a Nazi. You stand with racist’s you’re going to be called a racist. You stand with fascists you’re going to be called a fascist. You stand with Putin you’re going to be called a communist. It’s pretty simple. Just because most people don’t support those stances don’t go all snowflake by lumping everyone in the alt left you claim exists.
That's all well and good, but there's a difference between calling out injustice and going nuclear on someone for having a different opinion/stance. I can't say which situation is going on here with the Times, so I won't... just making a general statement.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
This is the desperation of the right, trying to hold this obvious attempt to gain notoriety and future job prospects up as an example of the employer somehow being corrupt. smh
GOPers grasping at straws. Bye Bye Trump and company. lmao
This has a lot of the similar elements to the Evergreen State fiasco that happened well over three years ago. In this case, it's journalism instead of higher education.
At DT, context and meaning are a scarecrow kicking at moving goalposts.
This is the desperation of the right, trying to hold this obvious attempt to gain notoriety and future job prospects up as an example of the employer somehow being corrupt. smh
GOPers grasping at straws. Bye Bye Trump and company. lmao
the NYT is a big part of the propaganda arm of the liberal elite.. hasn't be a respectable publication of "journalism" in a long time... every once in a while, in an attempt to try to prove they are objective they let some conservative run something in the opinion section, that's about it.... put it on the list with WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, and the rest... totally in the pocked of the democratic party and anybody who doesn't see that is looking at the world through blue colored glasses.
Putting Wash Post next to MSNBC is borderline misleading. I'll look at the Times with a more suspicious eye, but when you have your Repub president putting out so much material that's so easy to criticize, it's hard to hold back.
There is no level of sucking we haven't seen; in fact, I'm pretty sure we hold the patents on a few levels of sucking NOBODY had seen until the past few years.
This is the desperation of the right, trying to hold this obvious attempt to gain notoriety and future job prospects up as an example of the employer somehow being corrupt. smh
GOPers grasping at straws. Bye Bye Trump and company. lmao
the NYT is a big part of the propaganda arm of the liberal elite.. hasn't be a respectable publication of "journalism" in a long time... every once in a while, in an attempt to try to prove they are objective they let some conservative run something in the opinion section, that's about it.... put it on the list with WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, and the rest... totally in the pocked of the democratic party and anybody who doesn't see that is looking at the world through blue colored glasses.
HA! In the last 5 months, anti Trump republicans/conservatives have damaged him way more than anyone else other than Trump himself. I've never seen so much right wing support for the democratic nominee!
That's how the right has been attacking the truth for a long time now. It's old rhetoric and the people are figuring it out.
if the media always told me what I wanted to hear I'd believe they were "the truth" too. that's how you explain the rise of Fox News...
to see the bias across all media one must first be able to look at the media somewhat objectively, which is something I'm fairly certain you can't do... just as anybody who sucks from the teat of the democrat or republican party can't do.
The obituary of the United States of America will lead with:
I do look at it objectively. Often times I research the story at other sources. The problem becomes when everything a news source reports is dismissed with "They are fake news". Then most either totally dismiss the message and even claim that some news sources never tell the truth.
The truth can be inconvenient for a lot of people. That works in both directions. As of this moment in time it has been working to cover up the terrible actions of Trump more than anything else.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
If there was some way I could hack the server and your account I would remove that Thomas Jefferson quote from your signature. You're not worthy of quoting Jefferson.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Your post the last few weeks says you don’t even know what you believe in.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
How do you figure? He certainly doesn't believe in any of the Libertarian values Jefferson believed in, that's for sure. You're full of it.
Why are you wasting time with an explanation that deep? Why not just point out the irony that a poster who decries and denounces others for being racist unabashedly and proudly quotes a Founding racist who not only owned slaves but further debased them by subjecting them to sexual servitude?
I mean, that's the game that's being played these days isn't it?
"Hey, I'm a reasonable guy. But I've just experienced some very unreasonable things." -Jack Burton
-It looks like the Harvard Boys know what they are doing after all.
I have been getting on the other side a lot lately because they have pretty much chased away their adversaries w/their one-sided, gang-up on tactics.
However, I don't agree w/you point at all. I don't think the quote has anything to do w/owning slaves or sexual servitude.
That's as dumb as saying the name "Chiefs" is offensive to Native Americans.
Y'all go too far...............on both sides.
I know the quote doesn't have anything to do with salves or servitude.
My point is that the person who the quote is attributed to has engaged in those things. The irony is that anyone on the "right" would not be afforded the same level of nuance or separation between the person and the quote.
"Hey, I'm a reasonable guy. But I've just experienced some very unreasonable things." -Jack Burton
-It looks like the Harvard Boys know what they are doing after all.
This is not surprising. About 8 years ago I was doxed by a people of the LGBT community because I made some comments on my personal facebook. A group of lesbians were doxing a woman because she said something along the lines of "Drug addiction is a choice that people make not a disease, I have decades of experience treating these people and almost always it is a choice they make and continue to make every day".
When I chimed in that she was allowed to have an opinion on the matter being a subject matter expert and that doxing her was those people just being jackasses. They doxed me, sent a letter to my HR department, wrote reviews with my name on the internet.
Wrong think is not acceptable, they will call you a fascist and then try to get you fired from your job. Hypocrisy is something the left stopped concerning themselves with a long time ago.
I don't do social media. What is doxing and are saying Facebook sent a letter to your work HR?
Doxing is where they find public information, in this example my real name. Then they dig further on the internet to find all of your other personal information.....home address, where you work etc.
Then they use that information to negatively affect your life in some way. In this instance they found where I worked (the lesbians) and sent disparaging letters that I had to answer for. Every single claim was easily debunked when I met with HR because A. they were not true and B. it was obvious these people did not know what I actually did for the company because their comments didn't match my role. They also provided no evidence that I was what they said.
I could have lost my job had my HR been unhappy with me in some way.
The internet reviews however cannot be removed. The website essentially tried to extort $2,500 from me to have them removed. They remain to this day when you google my name.
