‘They Hate Gay People’: Ex-NYT Editor Says He Was Shamed By HR, Colleagues For Liking Chick-Fil-A
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A former editor for The New York Times said he was shamed by his colleagues and Human Resources (HR) simply for liking Chick-Fil-A.
The former editor, Adam Rubenstein, wrote in a piece for The Atlantic that he and a dozen other hires did an ice breaker at orientation and received a prompt asking about his favorite sandwich. An HR representative scolded him when he answered the spicy chicken sandwich from Chick-Fil-A, he wrote.
“We don’t do that here. They hate gay people,” an HR representative reportedly told Rubenstein.
“Not the politics, the chicken,” Rubenstein said, according to his piece.
He said being a conservative at the Times made him an outcast that received more rounds of editing and “greater involvement from the higher-ups” than his peers.
“There was a sense that publishing the occasional conservative voice made the paper look centrist,” Rubenstein wrote for The Atlantic. “But I soon realized that the conservative voices we published tended to be ones agreeing with the liberal line. It was also clear that right-of-center submissions were treated differently. They faced a higher bar for entry, more layers of editing, and greater involvement of higher-ups. Standard practice held that when a writer submitted an essay to an editor, the editor would share that draft with colleagues via an email distribution list. Then we would all discuss it.”
“But many of my colleagues didn’t want their name attached to op-eds advancing conservative arguments, and early-to-mid-career staffers would routinely oppose their publication. After senior leaders in the Opinion section realized that these articles were not getting a fair shake, the process evolved. Articles that were potentially ‘controversial; (read: conservative) were sent directly to the most senior editors on the page, to be scrutinized by the leadership rather than the whole department.”
I took notes. https://t.co/zVLlVMxVQM
— Adam Rubenstein (@RubensteinAdam) February 26, 2024
Rubenstein edited an op-ed by Republican Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton titled “Send in the Troops,” which called for law enforcement to quell the Black Lives Matter riots in the summer of 2020, he wrote. He said he resigned from the Times in December 2020 after the piece received swift backlash
Cotton’s office sent him several photos, one being of the Mississippi riots in 1962, that he wanted published in the embattled piece, and so he sent them to the photo editor to “consider,” according to his piece. The photo editor, Jeffrey Henson Scales, reportedly replied that it was a “false equivalence” and sent him another email with the black box to show his solidarity with the BLM movement.
Following the op-ed’s publication, an outcry arose among staffers at the Times who claimed it endangered their black colleagues, he wrote.
“It was an outlandish claim but next to impossible to rebut—how can you tell someone who says they’re not safe that, in fact, they’re fine? Did they know that in some states, troops had already been deployed to protect public safety? Were we reading the same op-ed? Were they serious?” Rubenstein wrote for The Atlantic.
He said the paper refused to confront “the tough reality” that the op-ed was “within the bounds of reasonable discourse” and refused to accept “a mainstream American view.”
“As painful as it was in my mid-20s to think that my journalistic career would end as a result of this episode, it’s even more painful to think that newsrooms haven’t learned the right lessons from it,” he wrote. “If the Times or any other outlet aims to cover America as it is and not simply how they want it to be, they should recruit more editors and reporters with conservative backgrounds, and then support them in their work. They should hire journalists, not activists. And they should remember that heterodoxy isn’t heresy.”
He further pointed out in his piece that the Times added an editor’s note containing “many errors,” including its claim that it was “rushed” and that “senior editors were not sufficiently involved” in its initial publication. Rubenstein said none of those claims were true.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
64 visitors
A good reminder that no matter how crazy you think the progressives running the media are, they are actually crazier and a nice demonstration of how instituitions like the Times sort for ideological conformity. A rational centrist would have a hard time even functioning amongst this partisan insanity.
Imagine getting criticized by a company HR representative for saying you like a chick fil a sandwich.
I don't like chicken sandwiches, so I don't eat at thumper chicken, and I don't give a fuck who does...
I am sure chickens all over America are glad to hear that.
This ex-editor guy sounds like a really whiny little bitch.
Not at all.
He is simply relating his experiences at The Fishwrap of Record.
Imagine whining about Chick Fil A!
it was a journalistic audition in the quest to get his bucket filled at the bottomless well of conspiracy suckers...
[deleted]
Chick-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby will be the downfall of democracy and America if we don't stop them in their dastardly tracks right now!
oh, yeah..................../s
Who wants to stop them?
Chick-Fil-A sells unhealthy food and Hobby Lobby sells Chinese junk. Pretty much the norm of what is offered for consumption in the US.
Who benefits? Doctors and China?
I stopped donating to my college when they were going to let a chick-fil-a on campus and decided not to after the student uproar (all 10 of them according to the pictures).
Seems like lots of liberals to me.
So they are not unique in that regard, which leaves me to assume it must be their religious stances which upsets liberals so much.
I would venture their owners and employees benefit from the successes of their respective companies.
Liberals, who make the news, in articles like this are poster children for what should never be considered liberal unless liberal means intolerance for choice and free thought.
Before my liberal card was taken away in 2016 because I supported Sanders, I was among the liberals who did not care who ate at Chick-Fil-A or shopped at Hobby Lobby.
Some liberals display actions that show intolerance for choice and free thought despite continual claims otherwise.
I meant the consumers did not benefit from consuming the products offered.
And like I said, this in no way makes them unique, as you yourself pointed out.
What makes them unique is their stance on religion.
There is no reason to tolerate anyone overstepping boundaries by trying to force their religious or any other belief structure in other people's lives. Intolerance is completely warranted in such cases.
Example: Women were jailed for protesting for the right to vote because the men in charge of the government refused to treat them as the equals that we are.
Does Chick fil a fit into this narrative?
Not to my way of thinking.
When I go to a church I expect a sermon. If I go to Chick-Fil-A, I would expect food without a sermon. So as long as I am not served a side of religion with my meal, I don't care.
But other scenarios can be considered in the same way. Would you knowingly support a business that supports pedophilia?
I really don't see how either company is forcing anyone to do anything.
Are there any?
I don't either. Which is why I don't pay any attention to what is happening with either one of them. If they make the news for trying to force their beliefs via government regulation, then I will voice my opposition at that time.
So you don't know what you would do because you need to know who the person is?
Does who the person is matter more than the pedophilia?
I am asking if there are any businesses that you know of that support pedophilia or are you just talking about an extreme instance that doesn't even exist.
This is going nowhere so I am bowing out of this discussion today. I have other things I have been neglecting today.
Hope to see you on other discussions.
Peace.
Sounds like a whole lot of projection to me.
What exactly do you find to be projection--and why?
That and the owner who is no longer alive gave donations to unapproved charities in 2010 ish and the liberals decided they must be destroyed. They are a very different company now but once the liberals have dictated you must be destroyed they can't go back.
Do you know of one? I have never heard of any. I have heard some liberals claiming pedophilia is natural should be legal.
He should have complained to HR.........OOOOOPS
The idiots at the Times strike again!
How dare someone like a sandwich?
Seeing as how you can find a chicken sandwich anywhere I don’t know why it’s controversial to get it at a place not named chick fil a. Since they repulse me as a company that’s exactly what I do. I found it funny that my son and his highly liberal husband still eat there though.
What exactly repulses you about the company?
They are obviously terrible. Just look at Erick McReynolds, VP, Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion.
Right there would explain it...........Oh wait, He shouldn't diss liberals like that.
Injecting religion and politics into a restaurant chain business model is repulsive to me, and I literally could not care less how you feel about that.
I dissed someone? Lol, you continue to amaze with your total lack of comprehension.
For eating at Chick-fil-A. Read your words. Amazing you lose track so quickly.
I spoke of irony. You interpreted it as a dis, [deleted]
Why should Human Resources of a company admonish anyone for liking a chicken sandwich? And at sort of psychopaths snap in anger when someone says the pay like a brand of sandwhich.
it’s not on anyone to chose a different type of chicken sandwich to eat to make their employer happy.
Because they didn't want to get the woke folk upset by seeing a Chick Fil A sandwich or product. Must protect those fragile snowflakes from all reality.
Why should Human Resources of a company admonish anyone for liking a chicken sandwich?
They shouldn’t. HR is the most worthless industry in our economy. Fire all of them imo, for a hell of a lot more reasons that this.
When Personnel Departments started calling themselves Human Resources problems got worse
Agreed. Recently I was with a colleague and on a teams call with an IT guy from our company. The IT guy knew my name (an obvious male name), he was listening to my obviously male voice, and he yet he asked my colleague what my pronouns were. I wasn’t mad but I was really confused about the question, and he sensed that, and followed up with “we have to ask”. Clearly this is a very misguided HR guideline. Apparently it hasn’t occurred to HR that this is basically saying that without seeing me in person I could be a person with a beard and a skirt. How about just calling me by my fucking name?
Because too many snowflakes have made an issue out of pronouns or calling a male a male and a female a female.
There seems to be a lot of snowflakes on both sides of this issue, there Tex.
Could be.
Do you consider people who call males males and females females, or who recognize that "they" refers to more than one person to be snowflakes?
Context Texan, context.
Answer, evilone, answer.
Here in the nation's Capital and Blue Fairfax County, Chick-fil-A does very good business with a long line of cars and most seats inside taken. They aren't go to let a donation to the Salvation Army stand in the way of a Spicy Deluxe with Pepperjack cheese.
I'm my happiest when I've found my way back in.
Good summary of this: