Condé Nast Purgatory: Dozens of Staffers Marked for Layoffs Bide Time at “Central Editorial Group” While their union negotiates with top execs about the scale and terms of layoffs, employees who had been working at GQ, Vanity Fair and Bon Appétit have been consigned to a unit that, sources say, mainly includes busy work.

 For the roughly 100 workers who have recently joined Condé Nast’s “central editorial group,” work has taken a bizarre turn in the last few months.

In November, 94 Condé Union staffers at the glamorous media company behind Vogue, GQ, Vanity Fair and Bon Appétit — across editorial, video and audience development — learned that they had been earmarked to be laid off as part of a company-wide cost-cutting push. (Workers at Condé Nast titles The New Yorker and Wired belong to separate unions.) But the cuts wouldn’t happen immediately: Because the NewsGuild of New York-affiliated union didn’t yet have its first contract in place, which would include terms and conditions for job cuts, the labor group maintained that the proposed layoffs had to be negotiated as part of the talks over the agreement and the employees remained in limbo at their brands, waiting to learn their fate.

An uneasy deadlock prevailed until January, when according to sources, Condé Nast began moving individuals on the proposed layoffs list out of their previous jobs and into a centralized team working across the brands as contract negotiations dragged on. (What this overall group is called is the subject of some confusion: One source recalls it being named something along the lines of a “centralized support team” early on. Writers say they belong to the “central editorial team.” The company has referred to the larger group internally as a “central editorial group.”) A few months later, nine additional workers were added to the layoffs list; some of the listed employees have since left the company or been elevated off of the list, and now 95 are installed in the centralized group, per a NewsGuild representative.

It was awkward enough for employees on the list to remain at the company for months. And then there were the new tasks they were assigned: According to group members who spoke with The Hollywood Reporter, work for some has consisted of writing summaries of Condé Nast’s previous coverage of various topics and “cultural significance profiles” of public figures; on the video side, it’s involved identifying favorable time stamps in past events coverage for sizzle reels. “It’s so weird. I can’t emphasize enough how weird it is,” says former GQ articles editor Chris Gayomali. He calls his state over the last few months a “purgatory.”

As the union and the company remain locked in a contentious labor negotiation with no end yet in sight, several members of the centralized group spoke with THR about their state of suspension in what some are referring to as a “rubber room.”

The work has been rote. Some respected writers and editors recently at prestigious publications — still being paid their full salaries from their previous roles — are working on summaries of how Condé Nast publications have covered female film directors, best picture Oscar winners and Grammy album of the year award winners since 1980 and U.S. vice presidents and first ladies since 1920, according to sources. Others are producing short “cultural significance profiles” of such figures as chefs José Andrés, Ina Garten and Pierre Thiam; Rep. Mike Johnson (R-LA); and Semafor co-founders Ben Smith and Justin Smith.

The point of at least part of this work, it’s understood in some quarters, is to help contribute to special interest publications, essentially Condé Nast’s versions of Time magazine’s one-off magazine on the future of medicine or an Us tribute to Matthew Perry or the royals.

“You kind have to laugh to keep from crying because it’s such a waste of everyone’s just time and energy and talent,” says Delia Cai, formerly a senior Vanities correspondent for Vanity Fair, of the tasks.

On the video side, union steward and former GQ video editor Doug Guida says he has been tasked “to go through past years [of] event coverage that we’ve done of the Oscars and the Met Gala and pick out time codes from all of the coverage to be used in sizzles, at probably NewFronts.” Guida, who previously ran GQ’s TikTok channel, which currently has over one million followers, says his current assignments are “the stuff that I used to do when I was an intern at post houses in college.”

Morale, according to those in the unit, is varied. There are those who are insulted and/or checked out. There are others who, while facing the reality of tedious work that is a demotion from past roles, acknowledge some gratitude to have the space and financial stability to plan their next move in a grueling media job market. The tasks they have been assigned apparently aren’t particularly time-sensitive (several editorial assignments do not have word counts, and no one who spoke for this story mentioned a due date for written work).

While some are more skeptical or have lost hope, others believe they could eventually get their old jobs back, depending on what the union negotiates. “This is our first contract. It’s going to inform layoffs in the future. And so this set of layoffs is going to be really important for that,” says Guida. “So I think there is hope that we can get back into our jobs because it is such an important part of the contract bargaining right now.”

It’s unclear how long the situation could continue. Led by chief negotiator and NewsGuild local representative Lena Solow, the union maintains that the November layoffs need to be negotiated as part of its overall first contract package, a process that has been ongoing so far for at least a year. Ultimately, if the union’s position holds, members of the centralized group will have to wait for a full agreement to be reached to know how they will move forward — like if any jobs will be saved, the amount of severance and whether there could be any voluntary buyouts. Bargaining dates have recently occurred about two times a week.

Meanwhile, the company, whose negotiations have been led by in-house counsel Cameron Bruce, has pushed for a faster timeline for talks on layoffs. In a March 28 update on the negotiations to staffers, the company’s People Team said, “The overall contract negotiations do not have to slow down talks on the proposed workforce reduction. We continue to ask the union to negotiate the workforce reduction with us so we can find resolution for everybody.” In the same update, the company noted that the union and management had so far agreed to 13 out of about 40 sections in the contract and that collective bargaining on a first-time contract “often takes up to two years.” By April 5, when the company put out its latest update on talks, the two sides hadn’t yet agreed on workforce reduction language.

And both sides have sought to hold the other accountable for alleged bad-faith bargaining during the process: In January, the union filed an unfair labor practice charge at the National Labor Relations Board, alleging that the company had engaged in regressive bargaining by offering the union a worse deal on severance than previously discussed — in other words, moving backward rather than forward in negotiations. Management followed with its own unfair labor practice charge in March, dinging the union for not taking its workforce reduction proposal “seriously” and only previously offering one proposal on layoffs that demanded 66 union jobs be restored, with a minimum of seven months of COBRA and severance for those cut. Both cases remain open at the NLRB.

In the meantime, the workers in the centralized group are waiting to learn what’s next. Says Cai, “We had no idea how long this would take, and I think we still have no idea how much longer it could go on for.”

The New York Times is investigating itself.
Over the past several weeks, Charlotte Behrendt, a top Times editor in charge of probing workplace issues in the newsroom, has summoned close to 20 employees for interviews to determine whether staffers leaked confidential information related to Gaza war coverage to another media outlet.
It is the latest internal crisis at the Times, where management has been at odds with factions of the newsroom over union negotiations and coverage of sensitive topics like the transgender community and social justice. 
Reporting about the Gaza war has been a particular flashpoint, especially over an in-depth article that found Hamas weaponized sexual violence in the Oct. 7 attacks on Israel. Some staffers questioned the reporting behind it and alleged that the suffering of Gazans isn’t getting the same attention. Times leaders in March said they stand by the reporting.
The internal probe was meant to find out who leaked information related to a planned podcast episode about that article. But its intensity and scope suggests the Times’s leadership, after years of fights with its workforce over a variety of issues involving journalistic integrity, is sending a signal: Enough.
“The idea that someone dips into that process in the middle, and finds something that they considered might be interesting or damaging to the story under way, and then provides that to people outside, felt to me and my colleagues like a breakdown in the sort of trust and collaboration that’s necessary in the editorial process,” Executive Editor Joe Kahn said in an interview. “I haven’t seen that happen before.”  
The Times is the envy of much of the news-publishing world, with more than 10 million paying subscribers and a growing portfolio of products like cooking and games apps. But while its business hums along, the Times’s culture has been under strain.
In many ways, it is a story familiar to companies big and small across America, as bosses struggle to integrate a new generation of workers with different expectations of how their jobs and personal lives should mesh—and whose evolving social values can sow discord in the workplace. 
But these tensions have particular resonance at the Times, which has long prided itself as a standard-setter in American journalism. Newsroom leaders, concerned that some Times journalists are compromising their neutrality and applying ideological purity tests to coverage decisions, are seeking to draw a line. 
Kahn noted that the organization has added a lot of digital-savvy workers who are skilled in areas like data analytics, design and product engineering but who weren’t trained in independent journalism. He also suggested that colleges aren’t preparing new hires to be tolerant of dissenting views.
“Young adults who are coming up through the education system are less accustomed to this sort of open debate, this sort of robust exchange of views around issues they feel strongly about than may have been the case in the past,” he said, adding that the onus is on the Times to instill values like independence in its employees.
Kahn said he welcomes the normal push and pull of any newsroom—journalists challenging each other’s assumptions and debating whether coverage is fair.
But he said opposition to the Hamas sexual-violence article, penned in late December by veteran correspondent Jeffrey Gettleman and two freelancers, crossed a line when confidential Times work-product was allegedly shared outside the newsroom. 
Tensions have run high at the Times lately, especially over an in-depth article that found Hamas weaponized sexual violence in the Oct. 7 attacks on Israel. PHOTO: ANGELA OWENS/THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Details about staffers’ pre-publication debates were revealed in an article published by nonprofit news organization the Intercept that said the podcast episode was shelved.
Some Times staffers said the probe was justified. But others said management is going too far. Behrendt, a lawyer by training whose official title is director of policy and internal investigations, asked for the names of participants in a chat group for Middle Eastern and North African Times employees and asked some staffers to name others who had discussed concerns about the Gettleman story, people familiar with the interview sessions said. At least one session lasted longer than an hour.
One staffer complained about the Gettleman piece in a letter to the Standards department, an official channel for raising internal concerns about the Times’ journalism. Behrendt, who had obtained the letter from another source, later called the author in for questioning. In the interview, she asked if anyone else helped her write the letter, and for her communications with a worker on the “Daily” podcast.
Stacy Cowley, a business reporter and Times union officer who sat in on a few interviews to represent staffers, said the Times is targeting employees who have been struggling to get the company to listen to their concerns about war-related coverage. 
“Instead of taking them seriously, the company is turning around and bullying that group into silence,” she said. The union has filed a grievance alleging that the company was targeting a group of staffers of Arab and Middle Eastern descent. Times leaders said the allegations are false.  
Strong passions
Coverage of the Israel-Hamas war has become particularly fraught at the Times, with some reporters saying the Times’s work is tilting in favor of Israel and others pushing back forcefully, say people familiar with the situation. That has led to dueling charges of bias and journalistic malpractice among reporters and editors, forcing management to referee disputes.
“Just like our readers at the moment, there are really really strong passions about that issue and not that much willingness to really explore the perspectives of people who are on the other side of that divide,” Kahn said, adding that it’s hard work for staffers “to put their commitment to the journalism often ahead of their own personal views.”
Joe Kahn, executive editor of the Times, acknowledged it can be hard for staffers ‘to put their commitment to the journalism often ahead of their own personal views.’ PHOTO: GARY HE FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Last fall, Times staffers covering the war got into a heated dispute in a WhatsApp group chat over the publication’s reporting on Al-Shifa hospital in Gaza, which Israel alleged was a command-and-control center for Hamas.
As Israel advanced on the hospital, doctors there were disputing Israel’s claims that it was coordinating the evacuation of premature babies. When a Times reporter in the chat questioned whether information coming from the doctors could be trusted, another shot back: “Are you conflating every doctor at Shifa with Hamas?”
The first reporter called the response an “old trick” meant to attribute to a skeptic “some shade of racism or chauvinism” to “put him on the defensive.”
International editor Philip Pan later intervened, saying the WhatsApp thread—at its worst a “tense forum where the questions and comments can feel accusatory”—should be for sharing information, not for hosting debates, according to messages reviewed by the Journal. 
“We need to do a better job communicating with each other as we report the news, so our discussions are more productive and our disagreements less distracting,” he wrote in the chat. 
Some Times veterans said criticism of the publication’s work—from external sources or colleagues—can be healthy. “We should be open to criticism, think about what it means for our coverage, without allowing our independence to be compromised,” said Peter Baker, chief White House correspondent at the Times, in an interview. “Finding that happy middle space is a huge challenge, particularly in this era of polarization and social media and very loud discourse.” 
The Times isn’t the only news organization where employees have become more vocal in complaints about coverage and workplace practices. War coverage has also fueled tensions at The Wall Street Journal, with some reporters in meetings and internal chat groups complaining that coverage is skewed—either favoring Israel or Palestinians.  
At the Times, the intensity and sometimes-public nature of the sparring has forced management to intervene. 
The company’s leaders in February deleted critical comments by Times staffers in the internal communication platform Slack about a trans-related opinion piece by Times opinion columnist Pamela Paul, for example, saying the company doesn’t allow criticism of colleagues or their work in large forums.
‘Trust team’
Despite the cultural turmoil, the Times’s business keeps growing. The company signed up 300,000 subscribers in the most recent quarter. A weak spot lately has been the online ad market, one reason shares in the Times are down 9% this year after rising 36% in 2023.
A.G. Sulzberger, publisher of the Times, greenlighted a ‘trust team’ focused on improving reader confidence in reporting. PHOTO: MICHAEL COHEN/GETTY IMAGES
The publisher of the Times, 43-year-old A.G. Sulzberger, says readers’ trust is at risk, however. Some journalists, including at the Times, are criticizing journalistic traditions like impartiality, while embracing “a different model of journalism, one guided by personal perspective and animated by personal conviction,” Sulzberger wrote in a 12,000-word essay last year in Columbia Journalism Review. 
Sulzberger greenlighted a “trust team,” a group focused on efforts to improve reader confidence in its reporting. The group is behind features such as disclosures that explain why the Times uses anonymous sources and videos of reporters discussing their work. 
Despite such moves, NewsGuard, an organization that rates credibility of news sites, in February reduced the Times’s score from the maximum of 100 to 87.5, saying it doesn’t have a clear enough delineation between news and opinion. “Our standards and processes are among the most robust and rigorous of any news organization in the country,” said a Times spokeswoman. “Nothing has changed in how we label our news and opinion coverage.” 
Seed of activism
The current dynamics at the Times stretch back to 2020, when a seed of employee activism took root in the aftermath of George Floyd’s killing. In June of that year, the staff staged a rebellion after the publication of an op-ed piece by Republican senator Tom Cotton, “Send In The Troops,” that suggested the U.S. military should quell riots. Some staffers said it made them feel unsafe.
Within days the Times had parted ways with Editorial Page Editor James Bennet. In a recent account of those events in the Economist, Bennet said Sulzberger supported the decision to publish it, and said he was forced to resign. Sulzberger has said he disputes Bennet’s narrative.
The company said it conducted a review after publishing the op-ed and found “the piece itself and the series of decisions that led to its publication did not hold up to scrutiny,” said a Times spokeswoman.
Dean Baquet, then-executive editor of the Times, waded into a controversy over comments by a star science and health reporter. PHOTO: NICHOLAS HUNT/GETTY IMAGES FOR TRIBECA FILM FESTIVAL
Emboldened by their show of strength on Bennet, employees would flex their muscles again on multiple occasions, pushing to oust colleagues they felt had engaged in journalistic or workplace misconduct. 
In 2019, Donald G. McNeil Jr., a star science and health reporter, was investigated internally over allegations he had used racist language during a Times-sponsored trip to Peru for high-school students. Two years later, in a Medium post recalling the events, McNeil said he repeated the N-word while speaking to a student about a classmate’s use of the slur. Then-editor Dean Baquet told the staff that while McNeil “showed extremely poor judgment” he was given a second chance because “it did not appear to me that his intentions were hateful or malicious.” After 150 staffers protested, the Times and McNeil ultimately parted ways. 
“Donald was reprimanded in 2019 and his eventual departure involved more than one issue,” said a Times spokeswoman. 
Employees were making their voice felt at the Times. At the same time, some editors and reporters were growing concerned that some Times journalists were letting their personal views dictate which stories to pursue—or not pursue.
One way to counter that trend was with the creation of a new beat for reporter Michael Powell to cover issues around free speech and expression. Powell created the beat in coordination with then-Deputy Managing Editor Carolyn Ryan, who had been tasked with safeguarding independence in the newsroom. 
One thing Powell noticed, he said, was that coverage that challenged popular political and cultural beliefs was being neglected. Powell’s work includes a story on MIT’s canceling of a lecture by an academic who had criticized affirmative action, and another examining whether the ACLU is more willing to defend the First Amendment rights of progressives than far-right groups.
“We kind of both had a nagging sense that we needed to write in a much more systematic way about these third-rail issues, of identity, gender, speech,” said Powell of his early conversations with Ryan. “The fact that I had all this territory was not a good sign.”
Kahn says it isn’t up to only one reporter to do this kind of work. “It’s a commitment that only makes sense across all the beats in the newsroom,” he said.
Powell left last year to join the Atlantic, and the Times recently appointed Jeremy Peters, who had been covering media politics, to the role.  
Drawing a line
Management concerns about independence deepened in February of last year when some Times contributors and staff signed an open letter to the Times’s standards editor laying out complaints about transgender coverage.
The letter, signed by over 1,000 Times contributors, including a small number of full-time staffers, criticized the characterization of trans people in the article, “The Battle Over Gender Therapy,” and the framing of the article “When Students Change Gender Identity, and Parents Don’t Know.” 
That same day, Glaad, a nonprofit LGBTQ advocacy organization, sent a similar letter protesting the coverage. 
Kahn, who succeeded Baquet as executive editor in June 2022, and Opinion Editor Kathleen Kingsbury said in a letter to staff that they wouldn’t tolerate participation by Times journalists in protests or attacks on colleagues.
NewsGuild-CWA members hold placards supporting a union walkout outside the New York Times headquarters in 2022. PHOTO: JEENAH MOON/REUTERS
Jazmine Hughes, a New York Times Magazine writer, who had signed the trans coverage petition and was warned not to do it again, left months later after signing another petition from the activist organization Writers Against the War on Gaza. Hughes resigned “under pressure,” she said in a statement at the time in a union newsletter. 
Jake Silverstein, editor-in-chief of the Times’ magazine, described her actions as a “clear violation of The Times’s policy on public protest.”
Divisions have formed in the newsroom over the role of the union that represents Times staffers, the NewsGuild-CWA. Some staffers say it has inappropriately inserted itself into debates with management, including over coverage of the trans community and the war. 
While the Guild represents staffers across many major U.S. news outlets, its members also include employees from non-news advocacy organizations such as pro-Palestinian group Jewish Voice For Peace, Democratic Socialists of America and divisions of the ACLU. 
When Times staffers logged on to a union virtual meeting last fall to discuss whether to call for a cease-fire in Gaza, some attendees from other organizations had virtual backgrounds displaying Palestinian flags. The meeting, where a variety of members were given around two minutes to share their views on the matter, felt like the kind of rally the Times’ policy prohibits, according to attendees. 
Partly in response to such activities, some Times journalists launched an “Independence Caucus” for journalists at the Times and other outlets. 
Political project
When it comes to coverage of U.S. politics, the Times has sought to counter the perception that it has a liberal bias. After Donald Trump won the presidency, reporters from the national desk were sent to places where Trump proved popular, like Pittsburgh, Fort Smith, Ark., and eastern Iowa. The Times also held question-and-answer sessions with residents in some of those areas. 
The remit was to do deep dives reflecting the points of views of people around the country on topics like immigration and trade, said Trip Gabriel, a reporter on the national desk at the time. 
“We were looking to better understand voters or Americans we may have overlooked but also to convince readers we were interested in those peoples’ points of views and people should read the Times in those places,” said Gabriel, who’s currently writing obituaries for the Times. 
Kahn said the Times’ national desk now is bigger and more equipped to cover an unprecedented election. The Times will also be more committed to covering misinformation in the 2024 election, with a team of eight to nine people, he said.
In January, Sulzberger shared his thoughts on covering Trump during a visit to the Washington bureau. It was imperative to keep Trump coverage emotion-free, he told staffers, according to people who attended. He referenced the Times story, “Why a Second Trump Presidency May Be More Radical Than His First,” by Charlie Savage, Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haberman, as a good example of fact-based and fair coverage. 
Kahn defended the focus the Times, like other outlets, has given to President Biden’s age, despite some concerns from staffers and outsiders. 
“What you do is you pursue every story, you follow the facts and you give readers the information they need to make intelligent decisions,” he said.

NPR is facing both internal tumult and a fusillade of attacks by prominent conservatives this week after a senior editor publicly claimed the broadcaster had allowed liberal bias to affect its coverage, risking its trust with audiences.

Uri Berliner, a senior business editor who has worked at NPR for 25 years, wrote in an essay published Tuesday by The Free Press, a popular Substack publication, that “people at every level of NPR have comfortably coalesced around the progressive worldview.”

Mr. Berliner, a Peabody-award winning journalist, castigated NPR for what he said was a litany of journalistic missteps around coverage of several major news events, including the origins of Covid-19 and the war in Gaza. He also said that the internal culture at NPR had placed race and identity as “paramount in nearly every aspect of the workplace.”

Mr. Berliner’s essay has ignited a firestorm of criticism of NPR on social media, especially among conservatives who have long accused the network of political bias in its reporting. Former President Donald J. Trump took to his social media platform, Truth Social, to argue that NPR’s government funding should be rescinded, an argument he has made in the past.

NPR has forcefully pushed back on Mr. Berliner’s accusations and the criticism.

“We’re proud to stand behind the exceptional work that our desks and shows do to cover a wide range of challenging stories,” Edith Chapin, the organization’s editor in chief, said in an email to staff on Tuesday. “We believe that inclusion — among our staff, with our sourcing, and in our overall coverage — is critical to telling the nuanced stories of this country and our world.” Some other NPR journalists also criticized the essay publicly, including Eric Deggans, its TV critic, who faulted Mr. Berliner for not giving NPR an opportunity to comment on the piece.

In an interview on Thursday, Mr. Berliner expressed no regrets about publishing the essay, saying that he loved NPR and hoped to make it better by airing criticisms that have gone unheeded by leaders for years. He called NPR a “national trust” that people rely on for fair reporting and superb storytelling.

“I decided to go out and publish it in hopes that something would change, and that we get a broader conversation going about how the news is covered,” Mr. Berliner said.

He said that he had not been disciplined by managers, though he said he received a note from his supervisor reminding him that NPR requires employees to clear speaking appearances and media requests with standards and media relations. He said he didn’t run his remarks to The New York Times by network spokespeople.

When the hosts of NPR’s biggest shows, including “Morning Edition” and “All Things Considered,” convened on Wednesday afternoon for a long-scheduled meet-and-greet with the network’s new chief executive, Katherine Maher, conversation soon turned to Mr. Berliner’s essay, according to two people with knowledge of the meeting. During the lunch, Ms. Chapin told the hosts that she didn’t want Mr. Berliner to become a “martyr,” the people said.

Mr. Berliner’s essay also sent critical Slack messages whizzing through some of the same employee affinity groups focused on racial and sexual identity that he cited in his essay. In one group, several staff members disputed Mr. Berliner’s points about a lack of ideological diversity and said that efforts to recruit more people of color would make NPR’s journalism better.

On Wednesday, staff members from “Morning Edition” convened to discuss the fallout from Mr. Berliner’s essay. During the meeting, an NPR producer took issue with Mr. Berliner’s argument for why NPR’s listenership has fallen off, describing a variety of factors that have contributed to the change.

Mr. Berliner’s remarks prompted vehement pushback from several news executives. Tony Cavin, NPR’s managing editor of standards and practices, said in an interview that he rejected all of Mr. Berliner’s claims of unfairness, adding that his remarks would probably make it harder for NPR journalists to do their jobs.

“The next time one of our people calls up a Republican congressman or something and tries to get an answer from them, they may well say, ‘Oh, I read these stories, you guys aren’t fair, so I’m not going to talk to you,’” Mr. Cavin said.

Some journalists have defended Mr. Berliner’s essay. Jeffrey A. Dvorkin, NPR’s former ombudsman, said Mr. Berliner was “not wrong” on social media. Chuck Holmes, a former managing editor at NPR, called Mr. Berliner’s essay “brave” on Facebook.

Mr. Berliner’s criticism was the latest salvo within NPR, which is no stranger to internal division. In October, Mr. Berliner took part in a lengthy debate over whether NPR should defer to language proposed by the Arab and Middle Eastern Journalists Association while covering the conflict in Gaza.

“We don’t need to rely on an advocacy group’s guidance,” Mr. Berliner wrote, according to a copy of the email exchange viewed by The New York Times. “Our job is to seek out the facts and report them.” The debate didn’t change NPR’s language guidance, which is made by editors who weren’t part of the discussion.

Mr. Berliner’s public criticism has highlighted broader concerns within NPR about the public broadcaster’s mission amid continued financial struggles. Last year, NPR cut 10 percent of its staff and canceled four podcasts, including the popular “Invisibilia,” as it tried to make up for a $30 million budget shortfall. Listeners have drifted away from traditional radio to podcasts, and the advertising market has been unsteady.

In his essay, Mr. Berliner laid some of the blame at the feet of NPR’s former chief executive, John Lansing, who retired at the end of last year after four years in the role. He was replaced by Ms. Maher, who started on March 25.

During a meeting with employees in her first week, Ms. Maher was asked what she thought about decisions to give a platform to political figures like Ronna McDaniel, the former Republican Party chair whose position as a political analyst at NBC News became untenable after an on-air revolt from hosts who criticized her efforts to undermine the 2020 election.

“I think that this conversation has been one that does not have an easy answer,” Ms. Maher responded.

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post