former Book review editor Pamela Paul‘s latest column would always take heat. ‘In defense of JK Rowling,” the New York Times An opinion columnist wrote in a piece Thursday morning warning that the Harry Potter author’s experience – of being repeatedly criticized for comments deemed transphobic – could lead to that of Salman Rushdie‘s, suggesting that the criticism of her resembles a QAnon fever dream. column yourself that had the internet scratching its head, but are timing: one day after more than 370 current and former Time Contributors signed an open letter calling out the paper’s coverage of transgender, non-binary and gender non-conforming people.
The open letter, signed by several prominent journalists and writers (and some celebrities), was itself the subject of much discussion on Wednesday. Several other prominent writers publicly opposed it, with some frame the missive as an attack on journalism. “An open letter demanding you stop covering a topic is pretty anti-convincing.” tweeted Matthew Yglesias“Journalists Against Journalism,” tweeted Jesse Singalwhose own coverage of trans issues has been widely criticized by members of the community. There was also support for the letter, included from veteran Nevada journalist Jon Ralstonspeaking as the parent of a trans child: “What worries me most about the treatment of trans issues, even by the mainstream media, is how easy it can be, without nuance,” Ralston wrote. Others be aware that the Time Contributors who signed the letter did not call for a ban on reporting on trans issues.
I’m told Paul’s column was in the works long before the letter; that editors rarely write columns and saw no reason until then. Yet the paper published Rowling’s defense hours after a somewhat confusing response to the contributors’ letter, which was one of two submitted to the Time Concerning coverage of trans issues on Wednesday A second letter from GLAAD, also with a list of prominent signatories (Judd Apatow, Gabriel Union, Jonathan van Ness), made specific demands for the newspaper, including hiring “at least two transgender people on the opinion side and at least two transgender people on the news side within three months” and to “immediately” stop “platforming anti-trans activists” and “questioning best practice medical care.” On the other hand, the open letter from the contributors, as a journalist Tom Scocca noted“makes no demands other than asking for a response.”
The Time merged the two letters and addressed them in the same statement. “We understand how GLAAD and the co-signatories of the letter view our coverage. But at the same time, we recognize that GLAAD and The advocacy mission of GLAAD and The Timejournalistic mission are different,” said a spokesman Charlie Stadlander said, going on to say the paper is “proud” of the stories mentioned in the letter.
When I clarified that I was talking about the letter signed by journalists and contributors to the New York TimesStadtlander claimed that letter was “delivered personally to the NYT this morning by GLAAD representatives,” while “GLAAD was simultaneously issuing press releases and letters of its own.” author Joe Livingstonewho helped organize the letter from employees and journalists, said Vanity purse that although the two groups “knew about each other’s letters to coordinate the timing”, they were “separated”, written and signed by different people. “It was important to us that our letter was a letter from contributors, while theirs was a much clearer advocacy,” said Livingstone.
On Thursday afternoon, editor-in-chief Joe Kan and opinion editor Kathleen Kingbury sent an email to staffers who said, “We do not welcome and tolerate Times journalists’ participation in protests organized by advocacy groups or attacks against colleagues on social media and other public forums.”
This post has been updated with Kahn and Kingsbury’s memo to staff.
