Times Ends Romance Columnist’s Contract After Criticism of Coverage
Olivia Waite, a romance writer who contributed a fiction column to The New York Times Book Review, said the paper would not renew her contract after she shared social media criticism of its reporting on allegations against President Donald Trump. Waite said she received an email on Friday that praised her work but referred to her apparent negative views of the Times, inferred from Bluesky posts the paper had been monitoring.
The posts concerned the Times’ coverage of an October 26 document issued by Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee about Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, the late sex offender. The committee said its report included accounts from 11 women, five of whom alleged that Trump had raped or sexually assaulted them when Epstein was present or at his property. Beatrice Keul, a former Swiss pageant contestant, told committee staff that Trump raped her in a hotel suite in 1993. The White House said the allegations were untrue.
Independent journalist Marisa Kabas challenged the Times over its story’s omission of the new details and the word “rape.” Assistant managing editor Patrick Healy said the paper had not corroborated Keul’s latest allegation with other sources, while noting that it had reported her earlier claims and linked to the committee’s report. Former Chicago Tribune editor Mark Jacob called the explanation unacceptable; Waite reshared his criticism.
Waite said she viewed the decision not to renew her contract as possible retaliation, though the paper’s email said she would not be asked to censor herself online. She said she had no regrets about speaking critically. The Times has not publicly commented on her departure, and Bluesky users widely condemned the decision after news of it circulated.
Times Drops Columnist After She Challenged Its Trump Coverage
The New York Times ended romance columnist Olivia Waite’s contract after she publicly amplified criticism of its reporting on allegations against President Donald Trump. Waite said the paper cited her Bluesky posts and its monitoring of them when it decided not to continue her work, despite praising the quality of her writing.
The dispute centers on a report from Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee describing accounts by 11 women. Five alleged that Trump had raped or sexually assaulted them when Epstein was present or at his property, and Beatrice Keul told committee staff that Trump raped her in a hotel suite in 1993. The White House denied the allegations. The Times’ story on the report omitted the specific new allegation and did not use the word “rape,” prompting journalist Marisa Kabas to demand an explanation.
The paper’s standards editor, Patrick Healy, said it had not corroborated Keul’s latest allegation with other sources, while pointing to prior coverage of her earlier claims and a link to the committee report. Waite reposted former editor Mark Jacob’s rebuke of that answer. Her case raises an obvious concern: a newsroom that tracks employees’ social media and ends a columnist’s contract after criticism risks discouraging scrutiny of its own choices.
Waite said she viewed the abrupt decision as possible retaliation and argued that discussion of rape should not be detached from real-life allegations. The Times has not publicly addressed her departure. The episode drew a wave of condemnation on Bluesky, while Waite said she remained a critic despite the end of her column.
Times’ Contract Decision Fuels Debate Over Newsroom Independence
The New York Times chose not to renew Olivia Waite’s romance-column contract after she reposted criticism of the paper’s coverage of allegations against President Donald Trump. Waite said the email cited views inferred from her Bluesky activity, which she said the paper had monitored. The decision has prompted a public backlash and renewed debate over how a newsroom handles employees’ political criticism.
The underlying story concerned a House Judiciary Committee report by Democrats on Trump and Jeffrey Epstein. The committee said it included accounts from 11 women, five of whom alleged rape or sexual assault involving Trump and Epstein. Beatrice Keul told committee staff that Trump raped her in a hotel suite in 1993; the White House said the allegations were untrue.
Journalist Marisa Kabas questioned why the Times’ coverage did not include the new details or use the word “rape.” Standards editor Patrick Healy said the paper had not corroborated Keul’s latest allegation with other sources. He also pointed to earlier reporting on her claims and a link to the committee report. That explanation drew criticism from former Chicago Tribune editor Mark Jacob, whose post Waite reshared.
A newsroom’s credibility depends on careful verification, especially when reporting serious claims about a sitting president. The Times’ stated reason for not including Keul’s latest allegation was that it had not been corroborated; a link to the underlying document also gave readers access to the committee’s account. Waite said she viewed the decision to end her contract as possible retaliation. The Times has not publicly commented, and the criticism of its decision spread widely on Bluesky.
Reported by Raw Story, Daily Mail US.
