Charles Blow ‘struggled to justify’ working at NY Times

Charles Blow recently shared his experience of feeling drained by the editing process at The New York Times, describing his once-fiery columns as a “zombie thing” lacking his original voice.

In the debut issue of his Substack newsletter, Blow the Stack, the seasoned columnist criticized his final years at the publication, stating that it no longer fully reflected his voice and made it difficult for him to justify continuing for pay.

Blow’s sentiments echo those of Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, who also transitioned to Substack due to editorial constraints and a deteriorating relationship with management.

Both Blow and Krugman’s decisions highlight a trend of prominent figures leaving traditional publications for platforms like Substack, where they have more freedom and flexibility in their writing.

Despite spending 17 years at The New York Times, Blow admitted that the grind of churning out columns took a toll on his confidence and writing style.

He emphasized the importance of maintaining conviction and confidence in writing, which he felt was diminishing in his work towards the end of his tenure at the publication.

While he initially signed off from the op-ed page in February, Blow returned to write a critique for the Times Book Review, where he found the editing process to be more supportive and respectful of his voice.

Despite acknowledging the positive aspects of his time at The Times, Blow expressed disillusionment with his experience on the opinion desk, leading to his departure without any feelings of regret.

Looking ahead, Blow promises his readers a more authentic and liberated voice on Substack, vowing to be a strong presence in challenging times.

The New York Post has reached out to The New York Times for comment on Blow’s statements.