New York Times Trying to Decide Whether to Fire Reporter to Win Pulitzer

#MeToo has degenerated into media outlets trying to "expose" each other's misdeeds. This struggle for dominance has consequences.

New York Times journalist Glenn Thrush has been suspended following sexual misconduct allegations.

The Times confirmed on Monday that Thrush, who was hired in January to cover the Trump administration, had been suspended while the publication investigates.

Vox interviewed multiple women who alleged sexual misconduct against Thrush, including unwanted groping and kissing.

The Times doesn't want to fire Thrush, but it also wants to win a Pulitzer. Decisions, decisions.

The probe has been a full-fledged inquest, consisting of numerous interviews with employees at the Times and Politico about Thrush’s behavior in the office and after hours. Its meticulous nature suggests the extent to which the Times fully comprehends the stakes. In addition to the primary consideration of sanitizing the workplace, multiple Timessources told me they also believed that the paper’s response to the Thrush controversy would almost certainly factor into its consideration for the 2018 Pulitzer Prizes, in which its series on Weinstein, Bill O’Reilly and others will surely be a strong contender.

And it can't get the Pulitzer for stories investigating sexual misconduct elsewhere if it's guilty of the same thing.

But guilt or innocence, who really cares. It's all about the Pulitzers. And meanwhile Vanity Fair is doing a writeup of the Times investigation of its own sexual misconduct as reported by Vox. Except that Vox had its own sexual misconduct scandals.

So it's dog eat dog. And the last dog barking gets the chocolate Pulitzer. 

Within the bureau, McGann’s article was viewed as problematic for other reasons, too. There has been much discussion about the fact that McGann met with Bumiller several months ago regarding a job in the bureau, a detail that everyone I spoke with felt should have been disclosed. (This concern was also flagged for Behrendt.) Another widely aired criticism is that the article should have either been a wholly first-person piece about McGann’s own experiences with Thrush, or an investigation that was conducted by a journalist other than McGann. On Twitter, ProPublica reporter Jesse Eisinger chided Vox for a “lapse in judgment to let a victim write a first-person account AND report on others. Can do one or the other, not both. Can’t be disinterested.”

Because of course the media is best known for being disinterested. That's why Vanity Fair gets this story while pushing a pro-Thrush angle.

This is the media.