Thread by @ClaraJeffery

1/ While the end of @benyt's piece on Harper's scratches the surface of the insane, persistent dysfunction and inequity that powers that place for decades, the top feels crafted by the unnamed spokesperson (GM) and Rick. nytimes.com/2021/03/28/bus…

2/ Harper's operates like a cult, one that swears even those who leave to some kind oath of silence, in part because they were complicit in the way that staff are underpaid and treated. It takes *decades* for many to wake up.

3/ The fact that no former editors or very senior editorial staff is on record in this piece is telling. Ben's a great reporter, so I'm sure he asked...some of them. Anyway i'd just like to call absolute bullshit on this:

4/ Yes, non-profits have the leeway to not pay interns because of this part of the tax code. And many operate on thin/no margins or at a loss, as would be defined by business community. But you know what? You can dedicate your institution to figuring out how NOT to do that.

5/ I railed against it while at Harper's. And made a priority at MoJo. Fast enough, no. High enough, still no. Is it hard to find funders for this, even with more racial/economic justice at forefront, still yes.

But Harper's not only never made it a priority...

6/ It was—and by it I mean Rick and Lewis and too many of the (almost exclusively white) editors who came up through the internship—was grossly, horrifically dismissive of all the issues at hand.

7/ Ben would not have had to look to far to find people to say something about this. Former Harper's interns and editors populate the vast majority of the NYT magazine masthead and other parts of the paper. And all the places he names.

8/ The union busting tactics of Harper's go unexplored (and, as an editor I must point out that a ~2000K column can only get into so much) but re their efforts AND the issue of unpaid internships I must point out that...

9/ One thing the organizers (which...like 10ish editors, really?) were asking/hoping for is that Harper's would concede to soliciting donations via the site and more broadly from other donors so that Rick would NOT be the sole source of revenue aside from meager ad sales. BUT

10/ what I was told was that Rick was opposed to this, like even a "donate" button much less an actual campaign. Now, absent a serious campaign, a button wouldn't do shit, as I told them. But even THAT was a point of contention.

11/ Why turn down the possibility of additional philanthropic revenue? Well, then you don't get to tell the story of reading your four papers a day and your trés Français dishevelment and intellectual liberation. Then you report to a real board, also.

12/ The failure to convey how non-profits work is going to increasingly bedevil media reporting as the universe contracts to:
*mill/billionaire-funded pubs
*VC Icarus pubs
*non-profits

the first two are widely discussed. the last is kinda boring. Except in this instance!

13/ To say that Rick funds Harper's is both true and not an inevitable truth. He could have diversified the funding, both philanthropically and ad/other earned revenue.

The question is: why didn't he.

14/ I could go on and on. And I Ieft 20 years ago. Many of the people I shared that hell with are kind, super smart, and talent unlockers of the top level.

And it was also a place where we'd be subjected to horrible sexist, racist, and antisemitic stuff on the regular.

-30-

15/ Sorry, one more thing! Whether mag print subs rise or fall are extremely dependent on how much direct mail or other super targeted marketing you're willing/able/deem it wise to spend.

It's not a popularity poll. It's about liquidity/risk tolerance.

16/ "hostage situation"