A dispute at the New York Times over its coverage of transgender issues deepened with news of a letter signed by high-profile reporters, criticising the Times’ union president for her own letter on the issue, in which she said staff who protested the paper’s trans coverage were concerned about “a hostile working environment”.
“Factual, accurate journalism that is written, edited and published in accordance with Times standards does not create a hostile workplace,” read the new letter, signed by the chief White House correspondent, Peter Baker, political correspondent Lisa Lerer and other senior figures and reported by Vanity Fair.
It added: “We are journalists, not activists. That line should be clear.”
Last week, nearly a thousand contributors and thousands of supporters signed a letter protesting against the newspaper’s coverage of trans issues.
Though “plenty of reporters at the Times cover trans issues fairly”, the letter said, the paper had published more than “15,000 words of front-page coverage debating the propriety of medical care for trans children” in the past year.
The letter also said New York Times reporting had been cited in support of anti-trans legislation in Republican-led states.
In response, a paper spokesperson rejected “any claim that our coverage is biased” and highlighted “the breadth of our coverage on transgender issues across both news and opinion”.
In an internal memo to staff, Joe Kahn, the executive editor, said the paper had “a clear policy prohibiting Times journalists from attacking one another’s journalism publicly or signaling their support for such attacks”.
In her letter, reported by Semafor, Susan DeCarava, president of the New York Times News Guild chapter, said Times employees were “protected in collectively raising concerns that conditions of their employment constitute a hostile working environment. This was the concern explicitly raised in the letter at issue.”
On Tuesday the new staff letter said DeCarava had betrayed “a fundamental misunderstanding of our responsibilities as journalists”.
It added: “Regretfully, our own union leadership now seems determined to undermine the ethical and professional protections that we depend on to guard the independence and integrity of our journalism.
“Every day, partisan actors seek to influence, attack, or discredit our work. We accept that. But what we don’t accept is what the Guild appears to be endorsing: a workplace in which any opinion or disagreement about Times coverage can be recast as a matter of ‘workplace conditions’ … We are journalists, not activists. That line should be clear.”
In a statement to Vanity Fair, the Guild said it was “committed to representing every member equally and fairly, regardless of reporting assignment.
“We take no position on the subject matter of editorial coverage and fight hard for every member’s right to work in a healthy and safe environment, free of harassment and discrimination. These are principles that are at the core of trade unionism and are central to our mission.”
