The Daily Beast (11/28/21) described a union bid backed by 80% of the Politico newsroom as a “divisive unionization drive.”
According to the Daily Beast (11/28/21), Politico‘s newsroom may have a “flashy exterior,” but it hides a “series of burgeoning conflicts.”
Politico might have internal problems, but it’s interesting to note two of the key issues the Daily Beast focuses on: “personnel issues, including complaints about internal ‘woke police'” and “a divisive unionization drive.”
According to the Daily Beast‘s Zachary Petrizzo and Lachlan Cartwright, the “older guard” at Politico is “vexed” that
the newsroom now centers around younger, more politically “woke” staffers who wield large amounts of influence, especially when it comes to ensuring a more diverse set of voices are featured in the outlet’s reporting.
Several of these staffers complained to the Daily Beast about “a vigilant ‘woke police’ force within the newsroom,” with one claiming that there are “woke police around every corner.”
‘Not inclusive enough’
The primary example offered of “woke policing” centered on an article (Politico, 3/5/21) by reporter Gabby Orr about the GOP campaign to bar transgender girls from competing in girls’ sports:
Two colleagues raised concern about what Orr had written, leading to a Zoom call between the reporter, who has since joined CNN, and Politico’s director of editorial diversity initiatives, Robin Turner, among others. The in-house diversity champion ultimately agreed that the article was not inclusive enough of transgender voices, the people familiar with the matter said.
This Politico article (3/5/21) was criticized by the “woke police”—otherwise known as the “basic journalistic standards police.”
By “not inclusive enough,” the Daily Beast means not inclusive at all: Not a single trans person was quoted.
Like too many corporate media pieces on the GOP’s anti-trans campaign (FAIR.org, 5/6/21), Orr’s article covered the story as one of political strategy and debate, not of the human lives affected. While it didn’t quote a single person identified as trans, it did quote two anti-trans activists and seven Republican politicians discussing the campaign as an electoral strategy, only two of whom expressed anything less than full-throated support for it. This barrage was “balanced” by a spokesperson for the LGBTQ+ advocacy group Human Rights Campaign, who was not described as trans.
As trans journalist Katelyn Burns (Medium, 11/29/21) observed:
If this was a story about any other minority, and a reporter didn’t quote a single member of that minority, while quoting five who make a living off of demonizing that minority, you’d call that shoddy journalism, not wokeness run amok.
‘Mischief making’
Politico turned over its Playbook feature (1/14/21) to Ben Shapiro to make the extended argument, “Yes, but Democrats are mean.”
The Daily Beast also pointed to an incident the week after the January 6 insurrection in which Politico handed the reins of its popular daily newsletter to right-wing bigot Ben Shapiro—who claimed Republican opposition to impeachment derived from “a deep and abiding conservative belief that members of the opposing political tribe want their destruction,” and downplayed Trump’s January 6 speech as “commonplace.”
Politico‘s editor subsequently defended the choice as part of the outlet’s commitment to “mischief-making” (FAIR.org, 1/18/21). That didn’t sit well with over 100 editorial staff members, who signed a letter asking for an apology and an increase in newsroom diversity, among other things.
As a result, the epithet “woke police” has apparently become so commonplace among certain staffers that the unionization drive felt compelled to address it in a Q&A handout (Q: “Are you guys the woke police?” A: “No. We are trying to get people paid fairly and protect their benefits.”)
‘Divisive’ unionization
Remarkably, despite the Daily Beast‘s framing of it as “divisive,” the unionization drive seemed remarkably uncontentious. After it gained the support of over 80% of eligible employees, management voluntarily recognized the union, rather than force an election—which employers opposed to unionization typically do, so that they can then try to illegally thwart the effort.
So what was so “divisive” about it? First:
Several veteran reporters who spoke with the Daily Beast argued that talk among staffers about pushing to be allowed to attend “activist marches” in a personal capacity could spell trouble for an institution claiming the mantle of a nonpartisan news operation.
A union spokesperson noted that while this was a “conversation that existed in the newsroom before the union effort began…it has never been part of our organizing activities.” They also noted that “the PEN Guild has never advocated for reporters to be allowed to attend activist marches.”
In other words, it would seem to be a non-issue regarding unionization. (We would note that the Shapiro guest-editing incident might spell more trouble for that “nonpartisan” reputation—not to mention the demand by new owner Axel Springer that all employees be pro-NATO, pro-capitalist and pro-Israel: FAIR.org, 11/5/21.)
Dropped from group chat
The second point these anonymous sources named was that they felt the drive was not “inclusive,” as “more senior staffers” were either not initially invited to a group chat about the union, or were removed from it “at the end of October…for having not yet signed on as supporters.” Given that the campaign went public on October 29 announcing their 80% support (Bloomberg, 10/29/21), it’s not exactly clear why this removal at the end of the campaign would be either surprising or offensive.
But it’s also not clear why an overwhelmingly popular unionization drive, or efforts to improve journalistic standards to include the voices of those impacted in a story and to avoid giving editorial control to a bigot, should be considered problematic instead of good for journalism. In another world, one might imagine that a story focused on these incidents and themes would be framed as something like, “Positive Changes at Politico Despite Sale to Axel Springer.” Apparently the disgruntled minority at Politico opposed to such changes knew they’d find a sympathetic ear at the Daily Beast.
ACTION ALERT: You can send a message to the Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com, or via Twitter @TheDailyBeast. Please remember that respectful communication is the most effective. Feel free to leave a copy of your message in comments.
Featured image: Politico‘s depiction (10/25/21) of its newsroom.
Politico is not woke, says some woke person, while quoting every example which proves it is
More bigots and corporatists in the editorial room! That ought to make news even less compromised than it currently is, right?
She calls Shapiro a bigot yet provides zero examples of why she calls him one. (Not to mention there is far from any type of consensus that he is one, unless you believe the views of the woke crowd as consensus opinion.) Now THAT’S shoddy journalism.
Shapiro is a bigot. Here’s a source Google it!
This troll thinks you are too stupid to click through and find this evidence that Shapiro is a nasty little bundle of insecure masculinity.
https://static.currentaffairs.org/2017/12/the-cool-kids-philosopher
You are so dumb. An opinion piece does not prove he’s a “bigot.” And that’s not even the point. An objective journalist should not be calling anyone a bigot unless there’s absolutely clear evidence, such as Nazis, avowed white nationalists, who would tell you themselves they are bigots. Just because YOU are convinced he’s a bigot does not make it fact. Millions of others would disagree with you.
And the other point is that she didn’t mention one reason she calls him a bigot, which she should have.
The inability of so few, including you, to look at things objectively and rationally, is why this country is f***ed.
Sounds to me you’ve got a problem.
“Woke police” sounds just about right — this article figuring in the enforcement effort.
It ought to bother FAIR editors that fellow leftists — leftists as virtuous as they are? — and any number of people of reasonably good will (as good as yours?) have no patience for this orthodoxy, and its shibboleths.
A Politico writer chooses to cover trans politics *as* politics. And consequently, the views of trans activists, or anyone outside the beltway, will be of no interest. But Ms. Hollar insists the subject must be discussed as human rights crisis and the aggrieved given full voice; a view not quite universally shared, as the politics of the matter (subject of the article) itself makes clear.
And whatever else you want to say about that worm, Ben Shapiro, why must the woke *always* revert to personal attacks which are unanswerable? How is Shapiro supposed to prove he’s not a bigot, when the criteria of the attacker is plainly circular? Say anything about the trans movement of which I disapprove and by definition you’re a bigot, and there’s no shaking off the charge…..
Meanwhile, you’re losing not only the public, but the actual left. If ever there was a proud suicidal movement among the insular and privileged, where all the costs are borne by others — as in the form of losing the public Republicans when matters of class finally entered American politic discourse on the Democratic side — this is it.
And if you don’t think it matters who gets elected, rethink your privilege.
I see that you are trying to present yourself as reasonable, but your own words betray you.
Do you ever write anything meaningful are you unable. Methinks you are not too bright.
You and others like you, who habitually and willfully ignore clear evidence, aren’t worth the effort to talk to like an adult. Just reread your comments in this article’s comment section alone, then ask yourself the same question you just asked me.