NY Times reporter filed HR complaint because editor threatened to ‘kill' him over story length
The latest headlines from our reporters across the US sent straight to your inbox each weekday Your briefing on the latest headlines from across the US
A New York Times reporter got into an 'epic blow-up' with his editor over a recent story about Harvard that resulted in the reporter filing a human resources complaint because he felt the editor threatened to 'kill' him if his initial draft was too long.
Before the Times published a triple-bylined report last month about some of Harvard's most prominent donors wanting to 'strike a deal' rather than fight the Trump administration, the high-stakes nature of the story resulted in tensions that boiled over as the deadline approached.
The incident was first reported by the Breaker newsletter. The Independent , meanwhile, was able to corroborate Breaker's report with three additional sources.
'According to two people familiar with the matter, [reporter Rob] Copeland and the New York Times business editor Ellen Pollock had an epic blow-up before the Harvard story ran,' Breaker noted. 'It resulted in a HR complaint about a 'death threat' and…Copeland taking time out from the paper.'
Copeland, the author of a bestselling book on famed Wall Street hedge-fund manager Ray Dalio, had drawn the ire of Pollock over delays in the story, prompting her to call him and his editor, Michael Corkery, into her office to hash it out. The story was seen as especially sensitive within the Times as many of the paper's reporters and alumni attended the prestigious Ivy League school. New York Times reporter Rob Copeland went to HR after editor Ellen Pollock said she'd 'kill' him if his draft on a high-stakes Harvard story was over 2000 words. (Getty Images)
According to sources familiar with the situation, Pollock yelled at Copeland for not staying on task and following her directions, eventually resulting in her telling the reporter that she would 'kill' him, Corkery, and herself if his draft came in over 2,000 words. Read More M&S marks 20 years of Gastropub range with Tom Kerridge ad
The tense argument and aftermath soon became the talk of the Grey Lady's newsroom, with one version spreading throughout the halls that threats of shooting were made during the heated dispute, though our sources note that this was not accurate.
For the most part, Times sources that spoke to The Independent indicated that Pollock was almost certainly joking when she issued her supposed 'death threat' to Copeland, something that isn't out of character for the highly respected journalist. At the same time, many reporters at the paper were 'baffled' that Copeland escalated the matter to HR.
'Ellen is a great journalist with a very direct approach, and most people who work for her understand that it's in the service of getting the best story,' one staffer said.
'Yes, obviously there was no way that Ellen was going to pull off a murder-suicide at The Times without clearing it with the masthead first,' the same staffer snarked when asked about the nature of Pollock's 'threat' to Copeland.
In the end, it was apparent that Copeland didn't see the humor in Pollock's and told her that she had committed an 'HR violation' and promptly filed a complaint. In the end, the veteran editor apologized.
' The Times is committed to fostering a productive and supportive workplace, and takes seriously all matters related to how our staff works together,' a New York Times spokesperson said in a statement.
As for the final product, the story – which Copeland co-wrote with Maureen Farrell and Michael Schmidt – came in at 2,282 words. 'Copeland, Corkery and Pollock remained alive at the time of our publication,' Breaker cheekily noted in their report. Read More Craft Media appoints Media Week Podcast host head of planning
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Harvard's long history of leftist support
When President Trump first began imposing restrictions on Harvard's share of federal largesse in May, it seemed to be simply more of his petulance against political enemies real and perceived. He has denied that he was ever rejected for admission to Harvard, so personal resentment on that score is not motivating him. But Harvard, a liberal icon and academic leader in the U.S, has opposed much in Trump's personal and political history. The antipathy deepened over his strong identification with Benjamin Netanyahu after the horrific October 7 Hamas slaughter of men, women, and children. In the aftermath, the Harvard community shamed itself by its disgraceful display of anti-Israel vitriol and tacit endorsement of violent messaging, which then-president Claudine Gay refused to condemn, leading to her eventual resignation. Trump was only too glad to seize the opportunity to bash Harvard, 90 percent of whose student body and faculty supported his Democratic opponents in all three recent presidential elections. Trump's political indictment of Harvard further broadened when Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that the U.S. would begin revoking the visas of students from China with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or 'studying in critical fields.' Later, Trump issued an official proclamation limiting the entry of international students entering the United States to attend Harvard for study, research and related academic pursuits. Harvard has more than once shown a soft spot for leftist leaders. In 1959 it hosted the young Cuban revolutionary Fidel Castro, who had just seized power in Havana by overthrowing right-wing dictator Fulgencio Batista. When Castro arrived, my friends and I were part of the huge crowd gathered outside Harvard Stadium as he gave one of his long, fiery speeches extolling the virtues of his revolution. In the Q&A session afterward, an audience member asked about reports of summary executions of political opponents by firing squads without trials or due process. Castro vehemently denied that any such extra-judicial killings had occurred. Less than two years later, after repeatedly saying 'I am not a Communist,' Castro announced his Marxist-Leninist ideology and Cuba's alliance with the Soviet Union. During the Vietnam War, despite its origins in the administration of Harvard alumnus John F. Kennedy, the faculty and student body turned gradually but decisively against the escalating U.S. intervention under Lyndon Johnson. Despite abundant evidence to the contrary, it increasingly viewed North Vietnam's Communist dictator, Ho Chi Minh, as merely an 'agrarian reformer' and the Communist Vietcong as oppressed democrats rather than as sponsored agents in North Vietnam's protracted invasion of South Vietnam. In May 1965, when Johnson's secretary of State, Dean Rusk, called out the academic community for 'its stubborn disregard of plain facts,' Harvard led the way in organizing the multitude of colleges and universities in Boston and Cambridge to draft a response to Rusk. The war in Vietnam demonstrated that Harvard and other U.S. universities offered fertile ground for communist influence operations, and China, North Vietnam's main supporter, took full advantage of the opportunity over the ensuing decades. The House Select Committee on China issued a report detailing the range of activities the Chinese Communist Party engages in to exploit the openness of American society, especially the availability of technical and scientific information. In 2021, Harvard professor Charles Lieber was convicted of selling classified information to university colleagues in China and lying about it to Federal investigators. That incident and others have cast a cloud of suspicion over the many Chinese and other international scholars working and studying in the U.S. University officials and government investigators need to find ways of cooperation to counter malign activities on U.S. campuses without damaging the reputation of America as a model for free speech and the open exchange of ideas — which itself would be a win for Beijing. The dilemma is not confined to the academic realm. For decades, the U.S. Defense Department has engaged in military-to-military exercises with the People's Liberation Army to build mutual respect and understanding and, as the head of a Washington think tank once told an audience, to 'professionalize' China's military according to Western standards. The problem with all these well-intentioned initiatives is that they ignore the underlying reality — that in China's totalitarian system, everything in academia, economics and the military is subservient not to the needs and interests of the Chinese people but to the Chinese Communist Party. Changing China for the better remains as daunting a challenge today as it was when Richard Nixon launched his ill-fated opening to China in 1972. The wishful thinking of unconditional engagement has proved both futile and increasingly perilous. Harvard and the U.S. government will have to turn their best minds to the project. Joseph Bosco served as China country director for the secretary of Defense from 2005 to 2006 and as Asia-Pacific director of humanitarian assistance and disaster relief from 2009 to 2010. He is a nonresident fellow at the Institute for Corean-American Studies, a member of the advisory board of the Global Taiwan Institute and member of the advisory board of the Vandenberg Coalition.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
US universities are moving to the right. Will it help them escape Trump's wrath?
In 2018, a teaching hospital at Harvard took down 30 portraits of distinguished doctors and researchers affiliated with the hospital. The portraits reinforced a perception that 'white men are in charge', a professor of medicine told the Boston Globe, and were relegated to less prominent areas of the hospital. Some students and faculty welcomed the decision, or were indifferent. Others were disconcerted. They saw the portraits' removal as the impulsive reflex of a university whose political atmosphere, already liberal leaning, seemed to continually lurch further left. In the years following, a series of fierce political winds – the #MeToo and Black Lives Matter movements; expanding diversity, equity, and inclusion programs; the Israel-Gaza war – buffeted Harvard, and each gale seemed to strengthen progressivism's hold on campus. Harvard began asking academic job applicants to file statements describing their commitment to 'diversity, equity, inclusion and belonging' in higher education. Opponents criticized the statements as political litmus tests. 'Over the last couple of decades, at Harvard and other elite institutions of higher ed, there has been kind of an ideological intensification in one direction,' said Jeffrey Flier, the former dean of the Harvard medical school faculty and a well-known critic of what he describes as leftwing conformity in academia. That ideological intensification is most pronounced in humanities and social science fields, he said, where 'it's quite a dominant reality'. Yet now – with a few years of distance from the ideological tumult that began around 2011, which some critics and observers dubbed 'the great awokening' – the situation feels very different. The Trump administration is pursuing an unprecedented pressure campaign on Harvard, on the grounds that it discriminates against white people and tolerates antisemitism. The university's federal funding is in question, as is its ability to enroll foreign students and make basic decisions about its own management. While many faculty and students at Harvard may still affiliate with the left, their power and influence feel pale in comparison with just a short time ago. The irony of Trump's attack is that Harvard and other universities – keen to appease critics who have accused them in recent years of liberal bias, tolerating antisemitism and being too soft on disruptive student activists – were already angling for an ideological re-alignment. As a result, these universities are now in an odd and paradoxical situation: trying to resist the Trump administration's project of ideological subjugation while at the same time quietly continuing their efforts to sand down their leftwing edges. It's a tricky dance, and it may not satisfy the Trumpist right. The problem is that 'in general, Harvard needs the government much more than the government needs Harvard', the political scientist Harvey Mansfield, who retired from teaching two years ago, said. Mansfield was for decades Harvard's best-known conservative. 'The Trump administration,' Mansfield added, 'has been rather creative in finding ways to torture its victim.' Harvard receives some $9bn in federal funding that is frozen or under review. In contrast to Columbia, which quickly capitulated to the government's demands, including that the university take over control of an academic department from its faculty, Harvard has tried to remain unbowed. It has sued the government, arguing that the Trump administration's actions threaten Harvard's academic freedom and violate federal procedures. Among other things, the Trump administration has demanded that Harvard cease all race- and gender-based affirmative action in hiring and admissions; take measures to screen out foreign students 'hostile to American values'; 'shutter' all DEI programs; and end recognition of several pro-Palestinian campus groups that the Trump administration has accused of antisemitism. The administration's attacks on universities have often emphasized the idea that they are centers of leftwing indoctrination. While it may or may not be the case that universities are incubators of a 'woke-mind virus', as Elon Musk and others have suggested, studies of the political makeup of the American professoriate do support the idea that it is disproportionately left-leaning. A 2016 study of voter affiliation at '40 leading US universities' found that in humanities and social science fields, such as history, economics, journalism and psychology, professors who were registered Democrats outnumbered registered Republicans by almost 12 to one. A 2022 survey by the Harvard Crimson found that 80% of faculty there identified as 'liberal' or 'very liberal'; only 1% identified as 'conservative', and none as 'very conservative'. In a letter last month to the US Department of Education, Harvard's president, Alan Garber, objected to the 'claim that Harvard is a partisan institution'. Yet he also acknowledged a 'need for greater intellectual diversity on campus' and indicated, without elaborating, that the university was taking 'initiatives to make Harvard a more pluralistic and welcoming place'. Last year, before Trump was again elected president, Harvard already appeared to be trying to change course. The school's Faculty of Arts and Sciences announced that instead of 'diversity statements', applicants would submit statements on their 'efforts to strengthen academic communities'. The university also convened a working group to study 'open inquiry' on campus. The group's report, released last October, found that 45% of students and 51% of teaching faculty were reluctant to discuss charged topics in class. More recently, in the face of Trump administration pressure, Harvard and other universities have walked back DEI efforts. Harvard recently renamed its diversity office the 'office for community and campus life' and said that it would no longer fund 'affinity celebrations', which are optional graduation events for identity-based groups, after the federal government said it would cut funding because of them. Harvard's most aggressive moves, however, have been its efforts to suppress sentiment viewed as being anti-Israel. In January, following a legal settlement with a group of students who accused the university of tolerating antisemitism, Harvard adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, despite opposition by people – including the author of the definition – who argue it is too easily used against critics of Israel. In March, the university dismissed the leaders of the school's Center for Middle Eastern Studies as well as suspended the Harvard Divinity School's 'Religion, Conflict, and Peace' Initiative. Critics had accused both of promoting one-sided views of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Other colleges and universities have taken similar tacks. Last year, Muhlenberg college, in Pennsylvania, fired Maura Finkelstein, an anthropologist known for her stridently anti-Zionist views, on the grounds that her perspective discriminated against Jewish and Israeli students. Universities broadly have taken restrictive measures to prevent a resurgence of widespread pro-Palestinian protests. The Atlantic recently speculated that Harvard and other universities, spurred by the political climate, may engage in a kind of 'affirmative action' for conservatives. Johns Hopkins announced a project this April, in collaboration with the right-of-center American Enterprise Institute, to 'increase heterodox faculty across the university'. It is unclear if academia's efforts to move right will make much difference. When it comes to higher education, the Trumpian right has not generally seemed forgiving of the ideological indulgences of the recent past. Despite Columbia's capitulation and Harvard's concessions, the government has not shown many signs that it is going to moderate its aggression. The University of Florida recently un-hired Santa Ono, an academic who was formerly the president of the University of Michigan, because conservatives disapproved of his past support for diversity efforts. Ono's efforts to distance himself from his own decisions made no difference. Reforms and compromises may not be enough to satisfy officials whose ultimate goal may look less like reform and more like retribution.
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump's immigration restrictions are pushing Corporate America into remote work faster
It is a fascinating and contradictory scenario: a president championing a full-scale return to the traditional office while simultaneously enacting policies that restrict new immigrants and deport existing ones. This apparent contradiction — a drive for centralized workplaces alongside a potential restriction on talent flow — might not yield the expected results. Instead, these combined pressures could dramatically accelerate the adoption of remote work, fundamentally reshaping our understanding of where and how vital work gets done. This isn't mere speculation — it's a trend with precedent. Harvard's Prithwiraj Choudhury documented how losing H-1B peers after 2017 denials reshaped team performance and nudged firms toward fully distributed structures. His broader research in his new book, 'The World Is Your Office: How Work from Anywhere Boosts Talent, Productivity, and Innovation,' showed that even during the Biden administration, existing immigration restrictions prompted companies to more readily embrace remote work. Moreover, he also shows that work-from-anywhere boosts productivity and widens talent pools, making geographic flexibility a durable competitive edge. At the heart of every dynamic economy lies its talent pool — the skilled individuals who drive innovation, solve complex problems and fuel growth. Companies are in a perpetual quest for this expertise. When national policies create significant hurdles to recruiting talent from abroad, businesses do not simply resign themselves to a diminished workforce. They innovate their hiring strategies. An anti-immigration stance, therefore, becomes an unintended catalyst, pushing companies to aggressively explore and expand remote work as a primary means to access the global reservoir of skills. This strategic pivot allows them to transcend geographical limitations and tap into a broader spectrum of expertise, a necessity when local talent pools are strained. Take the technology sector, for example, an industry renowned for its reliance on a global workforce to maintain its cutting edge. Immigrants have long been pivotal to American innovation; a 2023 report from the National Foundation for American Policy highlighted that immigrants founded over half of America's billion-dollar startup companies. If new immigration restrictions were to make it substantially harder to bring these vital minds to the U.S., tech companies would face an intensified scramble for essential skills. Faced with a potential constriction of the domestic talent pipeline for highly specialized roles, these firms will inevitably look outward — not by navigating complex visa processes for every hire, but by seamlessly integrating talent virtually. The imperative to innovate and lead will compel businesses to strengthen their remote infrastructures, turning a talent challenge into a distributed work opportunity. Consider how former President Biden inherited Donald Trump's June 2020 visa freeze and let it run until March 31 2021, extending a ban on issuing new H-1B, H-2B, J-1 and L-1 visas and leaving thousands of recruits abroad. Human-resources teams refused to lose that brainpower. Envoy Global's 2023 Immigration Trends survey reports that '81 percent of U.S. employers transferred foreign employees to offices overseas because visa barriers blocked on-shore options' and '86 percent outsourced roles originally meant for American desks for the same reason.' When one engineer keeps writing clean code from São Paulo, suddenly the whole team asks why relocation ever mattered. Other data confirm the shift. Revelio Labs analyzed millions of LinkedIn profiles and payroll records and found that 'highly remote-suitable roles have grown 42 percent faster outside the United States than inside it since 2019.' Software engineering, data analysis and legal research now migrate through cables rather than airports. Employers tap deeper candidate pools, pay lower salaries, and still gain round-the-clock productivity as teams baton-pass work across hemispheres. Rising immigration costs push the flywheel harder. Envoy's recent survey shows that '58 percent of companies plan to hire, transfer, or relocate foreign talent abroad this year' to dodge climbing filing fees and processing delays. Finance chiefs cheer because employer-of-record subscriptions undercut relocation stipends, while human resources heads welcome a talent pool unbound by ZIP codes. Employees benefit, too — remote veterans keep family roots, skip uprooted spouses, and pocket metropolitan housing savings. Cost arithmetic, cultural continuity and innovation gains reinforce one another. A dispersed marketing squad can test Spanish-language campaigns overnight in Bogotá, roll out Mandarin versions at dawn from Taipei, and ship a polished English release before New York's lunch. What began as a compliance workaround has become a competitive edge. Consulting firm INS-Global already advises multinationals to 'capitalize on sustained interest in remote work in the U.S.,' precisely because the federal sector is heading back into the cubicles. History rhymes: restricting visas without expanding domestic talent supply drives companies to distribute work virtually. Investors grasp the leverage. Each thousand dollars denied to moving costs drops straight to the bottom line. Client win-rates jump because geographically diverse teams localize products faster. Lobbyists still fight for higher visa quotas, yet chief financial officers quietly model scenarios around a fully remote future. The harder Washington squeezes physical entry, the wider corporate America swings open its digital door. Gleb Tsipursky, PhD, serves as the CEO of the hybrid work consultancy Disaster Avoidance Experts and authored the best-seller'Returning to the Office and Leading Hybrid and Remote Teams.'
