Earlier this week, writer and former New York Times columnist Bari Weiss revealed in a podcast with Senator Tim Scott that an editor at the paper wanted to send his op-ed to Chuck Schumer for approval.

The Times immediately denied the claim in a statement to the New York Post, saying in no uncertain terms that the paper would never ask for approval from an outside source before running an op-ed. They also tweeted out their statement.

.@nytopinion does not seek outside approval or consultation before publishing anything. This is simply not how journalism works. Times Opinion publishes a wide spectrum of diverse voices, and we always welcome hearing from more. pic.twitter.com/QatH3f7unV

— NYTimes Communications (@NYTimesPR) August 12, 2022

Here is the exchange between Weiss and Scott, where the writer explains to the Senator what happened when the op-ed was submitted, though we never find out why the op-ed didn’t run.

Weiss: Here’s what happened. I was at the New York Times and you or your staff sent in an op-ed about the bill, and why it fell apart. And this is the part I’m not sure if you know — there was a discussion about the piece, and whether or not we should run it, and one colleague, a more senior colleague, said to a more junior colleague who was pushing for the piece, ‘Do you think the Republicans really care about minority rights?’

Scott: Wow.

Weiss: And the more junior colleague said, ‘I think Tim Scott cares about minority rights.’ And then — and here’s the pretty shocking part — the more senior colleague said, ‘Let’s check with Senator Schumer before we run it.’

Scott: Wow.

Weiss: And the colleague, the younger one, refused. Because he said — because that colleague said — it wasn’t an ethical thing to do.

Scott: Wow.

However, a new source has come forward – albeit unnamed – and presented National Review with messages that confirm Weiss’ account.

The New York Times has repeatedly denied the explosive account from former Times journalist Bari Weiss that a senior opinion-page editor instructed a colleague to “check with” Senator Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) before running an op-ed from Senator Tim Scott (R., S.C.). But a second source with direct knowledge of the matter has backed up Weiss’s story to National Review. The source also quoted a message sent by a senior editor at the time insisting that the Times check with Schumer — even providing the email address of Schumer press representative Justin Goodman.

The second source also revealed that Scott’s op-ed, which focused on the Republican senator’s police-reform package, was initially solicited by the Times — as opposed to having been pitched to the newspaper — a detail that was not clear from the original account.

The New York Times being a liberal outlet is nothing new. That it is actively suppressing a Republican Senator’s op-ed is likewise nothing new, though I am assuming that the editors didn’t want another riot from the news department on their hands after the Tom Cotton incident. But was is surprising, though perhaps it shouldn’t be, is just how far the upper echelons of the paper will go to 1) give deference to the Democrats and 2) lie about it.

I assume this is related to an office communication system like Slack or something similar, where employees communicate with each other via text-based messages in an app. Some of these systems keep logs of messages for a while, so it wouldn’t be very difficult for the Times to find the logs of that time period and scour them, release them, and prove it didn’t happen that way.

Of course, we shouldn’t expect them to. That would be just silly.

We have a trust and credibility gap in this country because of institutions like the FBI and the New York Times. They act in clearly partisan ways, then attempt to call you ignorant for pointing it out. Then the left says it’s all the fault of conservative outlets that spread “misinformation” (meaning “information we don’t like”), though they fail to realize that they are the cause for the rise of conservative media. Their own actions lead to people losing faith in them demanding new outlets.

The Times should be ashamed of their consistently awful actions in the world of journalism, but they don’t have any sense of shame left.