Former Book Review editor Pamela Paul’s latest column was always going to catch heat. “In Defense of J.K. Rowling,” the New York Times Opinion columnist wrote Thursday morning, in a piece warning that the Harry Potter author’s experience—of being repeatedly criticized for comments seen as transphobic—could lead to that of Salman Rushdie’s, and suggesting the criticisms against her are akin to a QAnon fever dream. It wasn’t just the column itself that had the internet scratching its head, but its timing: a day after more than 370 current and former Times contributors signed an open letter calling out the paper’s coverage of transgender, non-binary, and gender nonconforming people.
The open letter, signed by several prominent journalists and writers (and some celebrities), was itself the subject of much debate on Wednesday. Several other prominent writers pushed back against it publicly, with some framing the missive as an attack on journalism. “An open letter demanding that you stop covering a subject is pretty anti-persuasive,” tweeted Matthew Yglesias. “Journalists Against Journalism,” tweeted Jesse Singal, whose own coverage of trans issues has been widely criticized by members of the community. Support also poured out for the letter, including from veteran Nevada-based journalist Jon Ralston, who spoke as the parent of a trans child. “What is most disturbing to me about the treatment of trans issues even by the mainstream media is how facile it can be, lacking nuance,” Ralston wrote. Others pointed out that the Times contributors who signed the letter did not call for a ban on coverage around trans issues.
I’m told that Paul’s column was in the works well before the letter; that editors rarely hold columns, and didn’t see a reason to this time. Still, the paper published the defense of Rowling hours after a somewhat confusing response to the letter from contributors, which was one of two delivered to the Times regarding coverage of trans issues on Wednesday. A second letter from GLAAD, also with a list of prominent signatories (Judd Apatow, Gabrielle Union, Jonathan Van Ness), laid out specific demands for the paper, including hiring “at least two trans people on the Opinion side and at least two trans people on the news side within three months” and to “immediately” stop “platforming anti-trans activists” and “questioning best practice medical care.” By contrast, the open letter from the contributors, as journalist Tom Scocca noted, “makes no demands beyond asking for a response.”
The Times lumped the two letters together, addressing them in the same statement. “We understand how GLAAD and the co-signers of the letter see our coverage. But at the same time, we recognize that GLAAD’s advocacy mission and The Times’s journalistic mission are different,” spokesperson Charlie Stadtlander said, going on to say the paper is “proud” of the stories cited in the letter.
When I clarified that I was talking about the letter signed by journalists and contributors to the New York Times, Stadtlander claimed that that letter “was delivered in person by GLAAD reps to the NYT this morning,” as well, even as “GLAAD issued press releases and letters of their own simultaneously,” Their statement applies to both, he said. However, critic and writer Jo Livingstone, who helped organize the letter from contributors and journalists, told Vanity Fair that while the two groups “knew about each other’s letters to coordinate timing,” they were “separate,” written and signed by different people. “It was important for us for ours to be a letter from contributors, while theirs was a much clearer advocacy action,” said Livingstone.
