Bari Weiss Resigns From New York Times Opinion Post

In a letter posted online Tuesday, she cites “bullying by colleagues” and an “illiberal environment.”

“Bari Weiss, a writer and editor for the opinion department of The New York Times, has resigned from the paper, citing “bullying by colleagues” and an “illiberal environment.”

In a nearly 1,500-word letter addressed to A. G. Sulzberger, the publisher, Ms. Weiss offered a deep critique of Times employees and company leadership, describing a “hostile work environment” where co-workers had insulted her or called for her removal on Twitter and in the interoffice communications app Slack.

“I do not understand how you have allowed this kind of behavior to go on inside your company in full view of the paper’s entire staff and the public,” she wrote.


In my flyer “Soviets in the Classroom… America’s Latest Education Fad”, 1989, in which I discussed the 1985 Reagan-Gorbachev Education and Cultural Agreements, I quoted New York Times writer, the late A.M. Rosenthal,in his 8/12/87 NYT editorial, as follows:

“American educators solemnly discuss with Soviet educators the mutual need for textbook revision, just as if the state did not censor every single book published in the Soviet Union and the Russians could write as they pleased. That is comedy, if you like it real black.”

Rosenthal was not reprimanded for such a comment.

The New York Times has always been very liberal, BUT its recent censorship of its writers, causing them to resign, shows it has morphed into a hard left journal leaving behind its former semi-neutrality in discussion of important issues.

I cancelled my subscription to The New York Times about a month ago.

Compare Rosenthal’s conservative/sensible views expressed in the following 1998 New York Times article with its past and present unconstitutional globalist/corporate New World Order positions.

3D, page 390
THE NEW YORK TIMES OP ED PAGE CARRIED AN EDITORIAL IN ITS MAY 5, 1998 EDITION entitled“The New World Order” by A.M. Rosenthal. Mr. Rosenthal put into perspective the values dilemma facing those who benefit from trade with nations not committed to the traditional definition of human rights. Excerpts follow:

APRIL 30—U.S. approves another $1 billion in aid to Indonesia as part of the international $40 billion economic bailout. President Suharto refuses to break up the multi-billion-dollar monopolies controlled by himself, his family and friends. He says no political reforms until 2003, at earliest. Police break up student protests.

• May 1—Washington Times and A.P. say C.I.A. reports China has nuclear missiles targeted at U.S.

• May 3—President Clinton’s June visit to China will include welcome ceremonies at Tiananmen Square. Washington preparing to allow U.S. companies to sell nuclear reactors to China.

• May 4—Human rights workers report continued oppression in China and Indonesia;more executions in China than in all the rest of the world.

The U.S., its democratic allies and major dictatorships are rapidly building a new world order—not quite finished yet, but already a central part of international life and values.

Its ideology, powers, rewards and punishments are supplanting those that prevailed internationally until 1994, when President Clinton joined the new order. If it continues, it will be the most important new international concept since the end of World War II. The order was created without formal parliamentary approval by its sponsors, or any treaty. But every week, sometimes every day, the underlying tenets are revealed, in action.

The following description of objectives and goals of the new order is so different from principles recently assumed in the West, though not always followed, that it may read as satire. It is not.

The fundamental change, demanded by the dictatorships and agreed to in practice by the democracies, is that the internal policies of persecution by the rulers, and the rights of the governed, are not a primary moral or economic consideration of the world.

The democracies, under these values, can protest some internal acts of the dictatorships—torture and such. But they must do so quietly, not allowing these acts, or often even security interests, to damage the new overriding value of the democratic leaders. That value is the trade and investment with the dictatorships that the democracies believe important to their national economies—which are sometimes called jobs, but usually interpreted as corporate profit.

In exchange, dictatorships allow democracies to invest and trade in enterprises the capitalists consider profitable to their corporate strength, although not necessarily to their own employees or the national economic health of their countries. If the dictatorships, or authoritarian governments as some are known more pleasantly, find their economies collapsing through the corruption generic to such societies, the International Monetary Fund and individual democracies rush to arrive with bailout.

The explanation given is that otherwise the dictatorships’ economies would disintegrate, bringing revolution. Now, the people of the dictatorships may long for revolution.

Obviously that cannot be allowed to overcome saving the dictatorship and thus rescuing the money invested by nationals of democracies.

Accepting these values, the events described above become understandable and even neatly logical.

The Indonesian dictator, for instance, was installed by the army 33 years ago and has been in power ever since. Now he needs scores of billions with which to overcome his own ineptitude and family corruption, and do the right thing by his foreign investors. Who can deny him?

The U.S. gets to sell strategic material to China, offering as an extra a visit to China by the U.S. President to honor the Communist leaders and expand their power and political life span.

Religious and political mavericks in the totalitarian partnership of the new world order, get prison, or death, often both.

The press of the democracies gets to write stories about the growth of order in the new world order. Other citizens of the democracies get to say costs of imported goods are down: how nice.

Americans and Europeans may come to object for political or moral reasons, or because the new world order may after all cost them their jobs. But they will never be able to say they never knew.

Wikipedia: Abraham Michael “Abe” Rosenthal (May 2, 1922 – May 10, 2006) was an American journalist who served as The New York Times executive editor from 1977 to 1988, having served previously as the city editor and managing editor. … He joined The New York Times in 1943 and remained there for 56 years, to 1999.