I love stories that showcase what I know about people. They finally get tired of being bullied.
Sure, some take longer than others. And sadly, the shelf life of Leftists willing to be bullied is far too long. But when they get fed, up they lash out like no other.
Such is the case with Bari Weiss. She explains how Leftism caused her to quit her dream job at the New York Times. She discussed her role at the NY Times, explaining that the Times was concerned about having missed the mark in 2016. They needed her (and others) to help with a reset.
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.
Clearly, Weiss wanted to practice journalism. But she learned that the bastion of Leftism she now worked for didn’t even understand its sins.
Worse, the NYT now went for “clicks”. She continues,
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.
Performance space. Narrow audience. Predetermined narrative. I couldn’t have said it better.
And what do you get when you don’t conform? Weiss explains,
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.
These practices would never be tolerated at a Conservative company. But in the world of Leftism, rules don’t apply.
Protest for insanity and racism like Black Lives Matter, and who needs masks or social distancing. As many Leftists reminded us, “Black Lives Matter more than white supremacy;” a supremacy showcased apparently due to the –dare I say enslavement–from a disease that originated in China. And lets not mention that the Times picks and chooses it’s “major developments” as they ignored stories of Biden’s sexual misconduct.
Double-standard much? One must love when irony and hypocrisy meet.
Weiss describes her situation:
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.
Private praise, public flogging. Over an employee’s wish to be objective.
In what might be the most poignant part of her resignation, Weiss discusses the lack of intellect of the Leftists. And the fact that what she went through describes the norm.
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 thunder-dome. 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.
Sad, but true. Intelligent banter is discouraged in this leftist culture. However, I have a feeling bigger, better things are in store for Weiss.