Tell-All From Ex-New York Times Editor Exposes Its Unhealthy, Insular Culture

Beata Zawrzel/NurPhoto via AP

When The New York Times published an op-ed by Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) in the midst of the 2020 George Floyd riots, a hysteria gripped the newsroom. The Times’s frantic handling of that uproar, detailed in innumerable exposés and tell-alls published since, has opened up wounds that just won’t heal.

Nearly four years ago now, Cotton’s Times op-ed argued that the National Guard should be used to subdue the riots. When many in the newsroom objected internally and publicly, the Times conducted a review and ultimately affixed a preposterous editor’s note to the piece. Most dramatically, the paper fired James Bennet, the editor of its Opinion department.

Caught up in this firestorm was Adam Rubenstein, a junior editor from a conservative background who was tasked with editing the Cotton op-ed. Once it was published, his colleagues unsheathed their daggers, which had evidently long been primed for use against him.

Indeed, from the moment Rubenstein arrived at the paper of record, he was made to feel out of place. According to Rubenstein’s latest for The Atlantic, he was scolded for identifying Chick-Fil-A spicy chicken sandwiches as his favorite by an HR rep while participating in an ice-breaker during his orientation.

“We don’t do that here. They hate gay people,” Rubenstein writes that he was told. His new colleagues snapped their fingers in agreement as Rubenstein “sat down, ashamed.”

He had nothing on the merits, quite obviously, to be ashamed of. Grounded, well-balanced adults are able to separate products from politics and artists from artistry. Moreover, they’re also typically able to tolerate those who disagree with them on any number of discrete issues. It’s how you live a happy, enriching, and full life in a heterogenous country of over 330 million.

But Rubenstein’s colleagues were not capable of such exercises of self-control, as his tell-all in The Atlantic makes plain. Far from it, they were determined to and ultimately succeeded in creating a toxic, insular culture that upended the lives of dissenters among their ranks and impaired the professed mission of the paper. That mission requires the platforming of diverse voices, including those of conservatives; its culture renders the process of doing so difficult.

The story Rubenstein recalls feels ripped in part from dystopian novels and in part from ham-handed conservative parodies of American campus culture.

Once the backlash began in earnest, a photo editor leaked his conversations with Rubenstein about the op-ed — in contravention with company policy — to a Times reporter writing a story about the controversy. That reporter, who had sought comment from Rubenstein by erroneously asserting that the he had written the op-ed on Cotton’s behalf, then proceeded to apparently mischaracterize the exchange in print. The result made Rubenstein look negligent. In another blatant mischaracterization, the article claimed that Cotton had called for the suppression of “protests against police violence,” despite the fact that Cotton had explicitly argued that “a majority who seek to protest peacefully shouldn’t be confused with bands of miscreants.”

In case there was any wonder how an article about supposed internal failings at the paper could include such errors, consider that another reporter whose byline was on the article was, according to Rubenstein, a “vocal internal critic” of the op-ed. In one Slack message, she wondered how the paper could profess to care about its employees “physical and mental well-being and then publish” it.

Of course, it was Rubenstein and those who worked on the op-ed, not their agitated peers who suffered the most. For his part, Rubenstein faced threats as well as harassment in his personal life. His girlfriend even faced pressure to reprimand him. To his credit, publisher A.G. Sulzberger contacted Rubenstein to apologize for the mess in which he found himself ensnared. But Rubenstein’s warnings that company leadership was bowing to an insatiable mob fell on deaf ears. The next day, Sulzberger fired Rubenstein’s boss, James Bennet. Sulzberger never again contacted the young editor he professed to have concern for.

The op-ed itself had an apologetic editor’s note affixed to it that claimed a “rushed” editorial process that Sulzberger told staff had been discovered by a formal review. But according to Rubenstein, the op-ed was edited by himself, op-ed editor James Dao, and Dao’s deputy. Bennet provided notes on the piece. Rubenstein, who was identified by the Times‘ own reporting as the editor of the op-ed, was “never interviewed as part of any formal review.”

Still more evidence of the corrosive groupthink at the Times can be gleaned from Rubenstein’s alarming article. A diplomatic correspondent, for example, criticized the op-ed by explaining that he didn’t like to quote Cotton in his stories. The Times told Mediaite that this comment was taken out of context, applied only to stories about China, and that the reporter happily quotes Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL), who holds similarly hawkish views on China. Yet the folly of this argument and method has been exposed in the fullness of time. Recall that what the Times characterized as Cotton’s “fringe theory of coronavirus origins” has long since gone mainstream. In another surreal instance described by Rubenstein, one Times journalist remarked that Bennet’s firing made her feel “hopeful.”

Rubenstein reflects that the fight over the op-ed wasn’t about “safety, or the facts,” but rather “control of the paper and who had it.”

“In the end, all that mattered was that an example had been made,” he concluded.

Internally, maybe so. But in the process of taking control of the paper, as well as punishing Bennet and Rubenstein for displaying the important journalistic qualities that they lacked, they have done serious harm to the Times’ brand.

Because the consequences of its stultifying culture are felt not just by its more open-minded employees, but all those who depend on it. After all, if the Times is so militantly homogenous that it condemns its own for a fast-food preference, how can it be trusted to provide the fearless, favorless coverage it promises?

Read the Times’s full statement on the Rubenstein piece below.

Our Opinion section’s commitment to publishing diverse views — including those that are unpopular, controversial or heterodox — is unwavering. That was true before the publication of Senator Cotton’s guest essay in June 2020 and remains true today. Indeed, we’ve only furthered that promise to our readers, offering an even more diverse mix of voices in Opinion than we did four years ago.

However, the commitment to publishing diverse opinions cannot be used as cover for bad process or shoddy work. In this case, the piece itself and the series of decisions that led to its publication did not hold up to scrutiny. Normally, a piece articulating a controversial argument on a highly sensitive topic would receive significant attention from the senior most editors. But our review found that despite concerns flagged by a number of editors, the review process was rushed through and cut out those editors who raised issues. In fact, the top editor in Opinion agreed not to review the piece so it could be published more quickly.

None of that was Adam’s fault. As a junior member of the team, he deserved better editorial support and oversight.

——

This is an opinion piece. The views expressed in this article are those of just the author.