(FiveNation.com)- One of the editors at the magazine The New Yorker has issued an accusation against the publication’s editor-in-chief, claiming he purposefully inserted errors into some of her articles.
Erin Overbey, who has worked at The New Yorker since back in 1994 as an archive editor, says the magazine’s editor-in-chief, David Remnick, started inserting errors into her stories so that he could punish her as part of a much larger campaign he’s running to “intimidate and silence women.”
Overbey made those accusations through a Twitter post on Tuesday. The editor said Remnick placed her under an internal company review, but she also accused him of having a double standard with the magazine’s male and female employees.
During the review process, Overbey said concerns were raised about some inaccuracies with facts in her articles. She has argued that Remnick, in his power position, inserted those inaccuracies into her articles himself.
According to Overbey, Remnick was aware that she was going through a performance review and therefore could face severe punishment if there were significant errors found in any of her work. This, she said, was what motivated the editor-in-chief to place the errors into her articles.
Overbey went as far as highlighting the different instances where she believed Remnick altered her work “to show the lengths to which even progressive institutions or publications will go when they actively seek to reprimand or professionally punish someone who has landed on their radar.”
She further said she was a target of Remnick because men within the managerial structure at The New Yorker “feel threatened by women now being more likely to speak out against sexist treatment.”
“These publications tend to claim that all they want is for people to voice these concerns in-house — away from social media and the eyes of the public. But we all know that’s not really true.
“Many employees who try to voice concerns in-house are often labeled problematic or penalized — all of which is to say that I’ve been under a tremendous amount of pressure lately due to my persistence and consistency in speaking up and refusing to stay quiet about workplace inequality.”
Not surprisingly, Remnick has denied all of Overbey’s claims that he purposefully revised her work to insert factual mistakes into them. Through a company representative, Remnick said on Tuesday:
“The New Yorker is deeply committed to accuracy, and to suggest that anyone here would ever knowingly introduce errors into a story, for any reason, is absurd and just plain wrong.”
Whether Overbey is successful at proving her claims will likely center around whether she’s able to show what her original drafts looked like. If she has retained copies of the work that she submitted for publication, then she might be able to prove that the factual errors in question were not there when she worked on the articles.
If she doesn’t have those copies, then it might be hard for her to prove it — especially if Remnick and the management team at The New Yorker are doing what she claims they are doing. They are likely to be able to easily cover up their tracks and lay the blame on Overbey.