Anger inside the New York Times as divided newsroom erupts in debate over recent controversies
At the core of the divide: What is the best course of action to take when The Times’ own reporters stand accused of violating some of the fundamental principles the newspaper champions? Exacerbating that divide is another question: Why can’t the Times’ leadership seem to decide on the best course of action in any given case and then stick with a decision once made?
There is no one-size-fits-all answer, but the lack of transparency from the top brass at The Times as to how such decisions are being made has frustrated staffers and demoralized a significant swath of the newsroom, multiple staffers at The Times told CNN Business in conversations this week. It has also raised questions about The Times’ leadership and how equipped it is to navigate such challenges.
« It’s a real f**king disaster, » one Times employee remarked to CNN Business.
It was only after McNeil and Mills faced new scrutiny for their previous actions that The Times no longer appeared comfortable standing beside them and the two men resigned. The apparent about-face has served as fuel in what is now a full-throated debate that has engulfed The Times.
The Times, however, told CNN Business its decision to part ways with McNeil and Mills came after new information surfaced after their cases received public attention.
« For cases like these, it’s the job of our leadership to investigate fully to find out exactly what happened and what should be done about it, » said Eileen Murphy, a spokesperson for The Times. « Often new information or concerns emerge after these cases become public. We work through these issues as we do our journalism, trying to do our best, focusing on the facts, and with our company policies and values — independence, integrity, and respect — central to the decision-making process. That’s what we did in both of these instances. »
But the lack of transparency into the matter has not quelled tensions internally and the void of concrete details has contributed to an environment in which many staffers are arriving at conclusions based on piecemeal bits of information.
But staffers who make up the opposing wing of The Times firmly reject that label and contend that their letter simply called for accountability and asked for transparency on how key decisions are made. The staffers also pushed back against the « cancel culture » narrative that has taken hold and suggested media coverage has been too focused on McNeil’s 2019 actions and not his lack of contrition afterward.
Importantly, Murphy also told CNN Business that the decision about McNeil’s leaving The Times had been made before the letter was delivered to management.
This article is based on conversations with eight Times employees who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss internal workplace dynamics. McNeil did not return requests for comment. Murphy declined to make Executive Editor Dean Baquet and Publisher A.G. Sulzberger available for interviews. Mills told CNN Business over iMessage that he is « just very sad » over the experience. Mills added, « I can say that I hope for better days for both Donald and my beloved NYTimes. »
‘No higher priority than getting this right’
Hours after The Daily Beast published its report, Baquet emailed staff to address the « offensive remarks » McNeil had made during the trip and affirm that he was satisfied with how the situation was handled.
« When I first heard the story, I was outraged and expected I would fire him, » Baquet wrote in that email. « I authorized an investigation and concluded his remarks were offensive and that he showed extremely poor judgment, but that it did not appear to me that his intentions were hateful or malicious. I believe that in such cases people should be told they were wrong and given another chance. He was formally disciplined. He was not given a pass. »
The note to Sulzberger, which was sent on February 3, said The Times « should now take the opportunity to review its policies and better assess the harm behavior like Mr. McNeil’s causes, both to colleagues and especially to the report. » It asked for Sulzberger to call on McNeil to issue an apology; for there to be a « renewed investigation into the 2019 complaints and into any newly surfaced complaints »; and for « transparent policies » that « address when Times employees use hate speech in their work for the company. »
The Times management responded to the staffers by writing a note, signed by Sulzberger, Baquet, and chief executive Meredith Kopit Levien. The note said management had « no higher priority than getting this right. » It ended promising, « You will see results. »
The sequence of events led many inside and outside The Times to believe that management had been pressured to take the action it did by what several staffers characterized as a « vocal minority. »
« I hate to say this, but inside The Times there is a ‘cancel culture,' » one staffer at The Times commented to CNN Business. The staffer, echoing what several other Times journalists told CNN Business in separate conversations, described a dynamic where « there is not much infighting, but there is a small group of people who are very vocal » and who, this staffer said, do not appear to be satisfied until « heads roll. »
Murphy told CNN Business, however, that while the decision regarding McNeil’s resignation was only announced on Friday, it was actually made by management before the group of Times staffers sent Sulzberger their letter — and after new information came to management’s attention.
It’s unclear why The Times wasn’t more transparent with its staff about the process that led to McNeil’s resignation before the resulting confusion could further divide some in the newsroom.
Some of those who signed the letter also pushed back against the characterization from colleagues that they were trying to « cancel » McNeil. One staffer who signed the letter pointed out that it « didn’t say anywhere » that McNeil should lose his job.
« We were calling on something that went beyond this specific case, » the Times staffer said. « But instead of addressing the larger issues, basically what happened was that The Times threw Donald under the bus. »
Another Times staffer, who also signed onto the letter, stressed that it was mostly « about systems of accountability » and how they can be implemented to deal with situations like this in the future.
That Times staffer also pointed out that McNeil did not show any contrition for his behavior after it was made public and was being debated inside The Times. Instead, in a comment to The Washington Post, McNeil had urged people not to « believe everything you read. »
The Times staffer said management’s excuse for not taking stricter action « broke down because there was no apology » and even suggested he might not have signed the letter had McNeil simply offered a genuine apology. McNeil did offer an apology for using the slur in his resignation letter, but of course by then it was too late.
On social media, infighting between Times staffers has taken place in both public and private.
‘Like all human beings, I have made mistakes’
The charges prompted The Times to say in a statement that it would take « fresh examination of his history and the way we presented him in our series. » That examination ultimately led to The Times’ announcing in December that « Caliphate » did not meet its « standards for accuracy. » The Times, as a result, returned the 2018 Peabody award it had won for the series.
The episode was a significant black mark for The Times’ audio department and resulted in the newspaper promising to implement more stringent standards governing podcasts. Callimachi, whose work at The Times had previously been questioned both internally and externally, was reassigned to a new beat.
But Mills, for a brief period, seemed to avoid accountability. Shortly after the « Caliphate » disaster, Mills co-hosted a special episode of « The Daily » that profiled radio host Delilah. This led to some critics suggesting that because he was a White man, he was given preferential treatment. It also led to previous colleagues of his resurfacing allegations of misconduct from years before when he worked at WNYC, a New York radio station.
« Like all human beings, I have made mistakes that I wish I could take back, » Mills wrote, saying that he had during his time at WNYC once given a colleague « a back rub » during a meeting and « poured a drink on a coworker’s head at a drunken bar party. »
Mills said that WNYC managers confronted him at the time about how his « unprofessional behavior was making people feel » and that he was « ashamed » and « took this reckoning seriously. » Mills said that he had worked for nearly two additional years at WNYC « without further incident » before he was hired by The Times in 2016. Mills said when he was hired, he was « open » with the newspaper about his time at WNYC.
While Mills’ departure did not generate the amount of discussion inside The Times McNeil’s has, according to people familiar with internal discussions, some staffers questioned whether it was fair he had been forced out as a result of the « Caliphate » failure while Callimachi was only transferred to a new beat.
« Why does she keep a job and Andy doesn’t? » one Times staffer wondered in a conversation with CNN Business. « Andy was not the driving force behind ‘Caliphate.’ She was. »
Not everyone, however, agreed with that assessment.
« Just because there is a lack of accountability regarding his actions previously doesn’t mean you get to free yourself from accountability forever, » commented another Times staffer.
Mills told CNN Business over iMessage that the entire episode was « an awful experience » and that he was hoping to not be « the subject of anymore stories for a long time. »
« I hope you can understand, » Mills added.