The New York Times’ long-form criticism of Bari Weiss this week struck me as hypocritical, dishonest and a long time in coming. I suppose even for the Times, it takes a while to figure out how to try to marginalize someone who disagrees with your ideology while pretending that you actually really like them as a person. A whole lot. Or maybe it just wanted to avoid the appearance of a defamation claim.

At the crux of its Aug. 11 piece, the Times cites a critic of Weiss as saying that her Free Press is “entitled to have a political slant [but not to then] present it as a site that is dedicated to the pursuit of truth and objectivity.”

Quick. Someone get the Gray Lady a mirror.

The Times states that, via email, Weiss refused to be interviewed for the piece and then quotes the reason for it given in her email. It’s ugly to use the courtesy, politeness and professionalism of a former colleague against them. I will not repeat the quote.

Did the Times do Weiss the reciprocal courtesy of getting permission to quote her? I could be wrong, but the email sounded off the record to me. Even if it wasn’t, the Times behaved unprofessionally in doing this to its own former employee.

But let’s get back to the hit piece. Yes, the essay is abundantly careful to say quite a number of very nice things about Weiss—that she is genuinely charming and charismatic, for example. But make no mistake, the goal of the piece is to paint her work and views as dangerous and possibly dishonest. The article suggests that Weiss is selling unique political views as “truth” when she is actually peddling political hyperbole and propaganda.

Again, doest though have no mirror, Gray Lady?

And while I am and always have been a strong supporter of the LGBTQ community, I found it odd how frequently the piece mentioned that Weiss is a lesbian. I started and then stopped counting at one point. The tactic was bizarre and served no apparent purpose except possibly to make it seem like they don’t believe her. Or that she’s using her marriage to a woman in some disingenuous way.

Bizarre. And highly inappropriate.

What has happened to the paper of record? It doesn’t want to engage in discussion with more than one viewpoint; it wants to indoctrinate and tear down those who don’t capitulate to their point of view.

This is the opposite of what Weiss is trying to do—and the Times doesn’t like it. Not one bit. Not the least of which is surely because she exposed them for this.

Funny thing, too.

The 4,800-plus word piece couldn’t find any space for the Times to take any responsibility whatsoever or to even explain the details of Weiss’s struggle at the paper and why she felt forced to leave. That seems supremely important if you are going to engage in a deep-dive essay like this. But an honest recounting would likely shred any notion that viewpoint diversity is tolerated, let alone, encouraged at the Times. Was Weiss bullied because she had views that didn’t sync with the anti-heterodoxy of employees? The piece, of course, doesn’t say. Because the newspaper no longer focuses on printing what readers want to know. It focuses on printing what it wants its readers to believe.

Yes, even in pure news stories.

Weiss’s openness about her departure tells you (almost) everything you need to know about her. The concealment of it by the Times tells you much about them.

Weiss wants you to know her agenda. She is very open about it. The Times, on the other hand, is scared straight that you’ll ever learn of theirs. Indeed, that’s really the whole point of tearing down Weiss.

I often wonder whether the Times even knows exactly what it is selling, but if it does, it’s certainly not honest about it. Do they believe they don’t peddle left-wing propaganda? Yes, even in “news” stories but also in deciding what stories they choose to cover and what they ignore.

Again, from the essay: A journalism outlet is “entitled to have a political slant [but not to then] present it as … dedicated to the pursuit of truth and objectivity.”

Ultimately, the Times wants you to believe that is Weiss’s problem when any critical thinker understands that it is clearly its own.