Hell hath no fury like a Gray Lady scorned, especially in public by its own staff. But even then, “fury” far overstates the case for what’s reportedly happening at the Paper of Record after its employee revolt last month.

Six weeks after a large number of New York Times employees signed a public letter denouncing their coverage of transgender issues, editors have begun to strike back. The Daily Beast reports from sources within the newspaper that each of the signatories has received a “tongue-lashing,” as well as a written reprimand in their employment file.

For most of us in the real world, this would constitute a remarkably mild set of consequences for public insubordination and ridicule of an employer. At the NYT, however, this means war, or something:

The stark warning has rankled some Times staffers, who have floated new responses including filing an official grievance through the Times Guild or, eventually, departing the Times altogether. Such a drastic measure, should it occur, could result in a “queer brain drain” at the paper, one staffer told Confider.

A “queer brain drain”? The entire concept of a brain drain at the NYT of any flavor seems quaint, given the ridiculous nature of its editorial cowardice and mindless activism among the rank and file, but YMMV. The proper response to that letter would have been to fire the signatories, or at least the ringleaders behind the effort. If this set of milquetoast responses from management over employee attempts to take over the paper results in a mass exodus, the editors may count themselves fortunate — at least in theory — for ridding themselves of self-preening virtue poseurs. In practice, they’ll almost certainly hire more activists masquerading as “journalists” again to replace the ones who leave, only this time with approved activist issues.

That brings us to a legit question that the Daily Beast’s source(s) among the rank and file raised. The Gray Lady certainly picked an interesting time to dig down deep and find its testicles, so to speak:

Other staffers questioned to Confider why those who signed the trans coverage letter have been subject to such scrutiny while those who publicly denounced Sen. Tom Cotton’s infamous June 2020 op-ed calling for troops to quell riots walked away without discipline.

That’s actually a very good question, and a very good point. The NYT’s editors let the inmates run the asylum in the summer of 2020, and let them run James Bennet out of the building for making a routine decision to allow a guest editorial from a sitting US Senator. Bennet himself probably wonder where all of this defense of Times reporting and editorial decisions were in that period, when the paper let him twist in the wind until they cut him loose to appease the internal mob.

The NYT’s editors made it very clear that the rank and file were the ultimate arbiters for editorial policy at that time. One cannot blame the employees for taking that lesson from the Bennet/Cotton episode and applying it elsewhere. The NYT’s management finally took control of the situation in this episode, and likely now comprehend the set of incentives they created in the summer of 2020. That may be why they’re treading softly this time, as a way to deliver the message about the changed paradigms in a fair manner. If that’s the case, the employees don’t appear to appreciate the indulgence shown them for their ridiculous insubordination.

However, it may well be that NYT management was just less sympathetic to Bennet and the decision to publish Cotton. That would be quite an amazing position, given the free rein given Opinion to publish claptrap and propaganda from poisonous regimes like Russia, Iran, and China in their op-ed section, but it’s certainly a possibility. The paper has never fully apologized and repented for the Cotton episode, certainly not in the way that management defending its editorial policies on trans issues in this controversy.

At any rate, we can now wait to see whether the “queer brain drain” manifests itself as employees suffer through the horrors of a strongly worded memo to file. And we can wait to see if anyone notices it if it happens.

Andrew Malcolm and I cover journalistic malpractice at another media outlet — NPR — in the latest episode of The Ed Morrissey Show podcast. Today’s show also features:

• Does NPR really think that there’s “limited scientific research” on athletic differences between men and women?
• Andrew Malcolm and I shred NPR for its activist narratives as well as for its half-hearted walkback.
• Andrew looks ahead to the 2024 cycle, and we both discuss Donald Trump’s rally in Waco.

The Ed Morrissey Show is now a fully downloadable and streamable show at  Spotify, Apple Podcasts, the TEMS Podcast YouTube channel, and on Rumble and our own in-house portal at the #TEMS page!