In a way this post is a follow-up to one I wrote earlier today. That one revealed how the NY Times newsroom became a “bloodthirsty” mob inciting a “Maoist struggle session.” It wasn’t a pretty scene and the newspaper completely caved to the mob and fired one of their senior editors.

So consider this part two of things happening inside the NY Times newsroom. And as I pointed out last week, the mob is at it again. A large group of contributors and celebrities signed a letter demanding the Times stop reporting critically on gender identity issues. If you missed that whole thing, give my earlier story a look. I think it’s fair to describe their complaints as tissue thin.

And it turns out there has been a lot of reaction to that letter behind the scenes, some of it pretty encouraging. First off, the paper’s executive editor and opinion editor sent an email response which warned, “We do not welcome, and will not tolerate, participation by Times journalists in protests organized by advocacy groups or attacks on colleagues on social media and other public forums.” In short, activism isn’t your job.

Next there was a response from the NewsGuild of New York’s president, Susan DeCarava. She attempted to push back against the email from the editors.

…the New York guild president Susan DeCarava posted a public letter affirming the right for Times staff to criticize the paper and its masthead, stating that “employees are 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 here.”

The response to that letter apparently started with reporter Stephanie Saul who wrote on the paper’s slack channel, “Criticism of workplace conditions does not include attacking the journalism of other members. I strongly object to this letter and I would hope other members of the unit agree with me.”

Which brings us to today when Vanity Fair is reporting dozens of journalists at the Times joined the pushback against DeCarava. They are basically arguing she’s out of line for suggesting a disagreement over a hot news topic has anything to do with “workplace conditions.”

We are writing to you privately in response to your February 17th letter, which we were surprised to see…

Factual, accurate journalism that is written, edited, and published in accordance with Times standards does not create a hostile workplace.

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.”

Our duty is to be independent. We pursue the facts wherever they may lead. We are journalists, not activists. That line should be clear.

Debates over fairness and accuracy are perfectly reasonable. We understand and respect that the Guild has an absolute duty to offer representation to members when they are subject to discipline by management. But we do not think it is the role of our union to be engaged in – and taking sides in – public debates over internal editorial decisions.

The implication of this letter is that by criticizing accurate reporting about trans issues, the signatories to the original letter are acting more like activists than journalists. This letter is signed by more than 80 members of the staff. That’s far less than the signatories to the original letter, still it’s good to see there are still some adults in the room who are willing to say no to activist manipulation. I think it’s too soon to say the tide is turning but at least the paper doesn’t seem to be caving in to pressure so far.

Finally, it’s worth noting that the idea that disagreement creates a workplace issue wasn’t pulled out of the air. This goes back to the complaints from Black@NYTimes staffers which led to the firing of James Bennet. They claimed that publishing Sen. Cotton’s opinion piece put them “in danger” at work. It was a spurious argument then but no one was willing to stand up to it at the time.