Short thread on an interesting job post for Deputy Opinions Editor at the New York Times: 
On one hand: "We're looking for an editor with a sense of humor and a spine of steel, a confident point of view and an open mind, an appetite for risk and exacting standards for excellence in writing and visual presentation."
What's more: "The Times Opinion team aims to promote the most important and provocative debate across a range of subjects – including politics, global affairs, technology, culture, and business – and is passionate about including a vast array of diverse voices and perspectives."
On the other hand: "this editor must be a sensitive and deft manager who is committed to advancing a workplace and culture that is inclusive, open and fair." Now, there isn't necessarily any contradiction there, depending on how we define our terms.
However, if we define our terms so that, say, publishing a provocative op-ed by a GOP senator airing a commonly held view is considered to transgress against the requirement of being sensitive and harm NY Times staffers by airing a viewpoint that makes them unsafe...
Then it seems as though the job is written up in a way that makes success impossible. Take risks! Be provocative! Be passionate about airing diverse viewpoints! But don't *lose the newsroom* where a faction regards those very things as insensitive and harmful.
I know a lot of people who would be great at editing a fantastic op-ed page. But I can't say I'd recommend that any of them take that job right now, because leadership wants to have it both ways:
They don't want to say *our op-ed page is now aimed at moral clarity as we understand it, reflects our values, and excludes many perspectives that are widely held among Americans.*
But neither do they want to defend staffers who give them the diverse page they asked for.
But neither do they want to defend staffers who give them the diverse page they asked for.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
