Claiming Weiss left because she was bullied out of the organization papers over leaves out the fact that there was obviously a significant pull factor to get her to jump ship, as you point out, leaving led her to make significantly more money.
But yes, there’s clearly a resentment from within elite media (WaPo/NYTimes) that people they don’t like have an avenue for editorial independence that is beyond their reach.
It may be true that there was a pull factor, but your comment appears to be trying to let the NYT staff off the hook for what would be considered abusive behavior in any other circumstance.
> 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.
This is one person's statement, but it's consistent with the way many people have written about the NYT's internal culture and internal cultural shift over the last 5-10 years.
Again, I don’t doubt that there wasn’t a tense environment for her in that newsroom.
But your “from the horses mouth” citation comes from a newsletter that dedicates a significant amount of its virtual ink towards the anti woke/cancel culture run amok beat. Weiss has literally made her living on this subject for years now, she isn’t unbiased*
*that said, I do want to note that biased does not mean wrong, even though it is often portrayed that way.
I'll admit to being confused by your innuendo. But your post definitely seems to be trying to minimize the abuse she suffered at the NYT -- by implying that her departure was really all about the money. And in another post you basically discounted the abuse claims entirely, saying it was merely a "tense environment".
So, reading her description, you would think that let's say Fox News had a similar environment for e.g. a member of protected group, it would not be "horribly abusive", and if the company refused to punish it and the victim quit, we should discount their claims of abuse and look for alternative explanations of why they quit?
But yes, there’s clearly a resentment from within elite media (WaPo/NYTimes) that people they don’t like have an avenue for editorial independence that is beyond their reach.