The New York Times Guild on Friday tweeted a thread on the fruits of its meeting with leadership, and the first priority was a “top-to-bottom resetting of priorities” to improve the working conditions of “colleagues of color” and ensure marginalized voices help set the standards for the paper. If the union succeeds, will there be any more marginalized voices like there are now?
Best of all, though, was the revelation that there’s something called “sensitivity reads.”
We met with leadership this month to present a series of recommendations that will create a more diverse and equitable @nytimes. We need a top-to-bottom resetting of priorities to improve the working conditions of our colleagues of color. Here are some highlights: (1/8)
— NYTimesGuild (@NYTimesGuild) July 31, 2020
Our workforce should reflect our home: The Times should set a goal to have its workforce demographics reflect the makeup of New York City—24% Black and over 50% people of color—by 2025. (2/8)
— NYTimesGuild (@NYTimesGuild) July 31, 2020
So does that mean hiring a bunch of people, or laying off a bunch of people?
Recommended
Document our progress: the Times should publish on an annual basis diversity data that includes information on demographics in hiring, promotion, and retention. (3/8)
— NYTimesGuild (@NYTimesGuild) July 31, 2020
Build a pipeline: 50% of candidates at each stage of each hiring process should be POC. (4/8)
— NYTimesGuild (@NYTimesGuild) July 31, 2020
Ensure marginalized voices help set our standards: the Times must add additional Black staff and other staff of color to our Standards team. (5/8)
— NYTimesGuild (@NYTimesGuild) July 31, 2020
Get it right from the beginning: sensitivity reads should happen at the beginning of the publication process, with compensation for those who do them. (6/8)
— NYTimesGuild (@NYTimesGuild) July 31, 2020
Grow our own talent: Invest in mentorship programs for POC at the Times, particularly for news assistants to move into reporter and editor positions and promote our colleagues of color from within to leadership roles (7/8)
— NYTimesGuild (@NYTimesGuild) July 31, 2020
Our membership is committed to restructuring our workplace to eliminate inequity and discrimination so that we can do our best journalism. We look forward to management’s response in meeting these goals. You can read our complete memo here: https://t.co/rHVEferJ3b (8/8)
— NYTimesGuild (@NYTimesGuild) July 31, 2020
We’re very curious about the demographic makeup of the committee that came up with these goals.
“Sensitivity reads” lol just call it censorship and go
— ?hargav (@ThatIndianGuy) July 31, 2020
You are literally suggesting news be passed through a filter of censors.
What the hell happened to you?
— Steven Brown (@Capitalistpig21) July 31, 2020
Who has the experience, wisdom, and mind-reading ability to determine what is "insensitive" for everyone? Why can these people be subjected to the insensitive material, but the public cannot? This feels like it serves the interests of sensitive individuals and not the public.
— Akash Shetye (@AkashShetye) July 31, 2020
Sensitivity reads? Pls. define ASAP along with what kind of compensation. This is a critical point that needs to be explained fully to subscribers like me.
— David Larkin (@David_Lark) July 31, 2020
In theory this sounds great.
In practice this will most likely limit what and how can be discussed grately. Which in my experience is not a clever thing. And at the same time I would bet my bottom dollar on it that there will still be people offended.
Let's hope I'm wrong.
— Monika Deutsch (@DeutschMonika) July 31, 2020
Big Orwell vibes here
— Risk of Ruin (@RiskRuin) July 31, 2020
The news almost always hurts someone. It's the moral obligation of the journalist to always publish the truth, not to warp and twist it through "sensitivity readings" until the truth is barely recognizable anymore.
— MMAAAAAAAAAAAA (@MMA_Thailand) August 1, 2020
I’m very close to canceling my subscription if this anti-intellectual wave keeps rolling. Bad enough your op-Ed page is an endless echo chamber.
— Anton Sorkin ن (@Anton_Sorkin) July 31, 2020
Sensitivity reads will not remove facts altogether. They will simply replace some facts with alternative facts.
— John Rational (@rational_john) August 1, 2020
Orwellian idiocy like this is why I cancelled my subscription to the NYT last week.
— dan_o_sands (@danosands1) July 31, 2020
Instead of prohibiting the publication of offensive speech, weak people should get stronger or be careful about what they read.
It's more limiting to censor offensive speech than to require weak people to be careful — there aren't that many weak people.
— Cal? (@AnonymousStaffr) July 31, 2020
When this happens let me know so I can cancel my subscription. Been thinking about it anyway.
— Matthew Woody (@MBWoody) August 1, 2020
Looks like apostles of the Frankfurt School of Marxist Critical Theory, otherwise known as Cultural Marxism, have taken over the New York Times. See, The Red Trojan Horse: A Concise Analysis of Cultural Marxism by @alasdair_elder.
— Jeff Peshut (@jeffpeshut) August 1, 2020
All the news that’s sensitive to print.
— The Stoic Emperor (@TheStoicEmperor) July 31, 2020
I can pretty much guarantee that any article that passes your team of sensitivity readers won't be anything most people want to read.
— Avam #IStandWithJKRowling (@avamanonn) August 1, 2020
Thank you, no. I will take risks and deal with it. I opt out of this.
— Rain Yaha (@RainYaha) July 31, 2020
This is… not it.
— Ingrid Jessica (@ingridjweinberg) August 1, 2020
A sensitivity read? WTH is that? The only "read" that should be going on pre-publication is factual reads. Make sure that what is being printed is factual & accurate.
— MissRandiB✝️ (@MissRandiB) July 31, 2020
Look at your own comments section. Nobody wants this.
— a e s t h e t i c (@strange_harvest) July 31, 2020
It’s like children run all media now
— Josh_Seattle (@CreamsikleNW) August 1, 2020
Related:
New York Times’ fact-check of AG Bill Barr on black-on-black homicide is just as bogus as the Washington Post’s https://t.co/Hx8mseR9wP
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) July 30, 2020
