While I know our average reader doesn’t feel this way, for many, the New York Times is the most prestigious newspaper in America. Working there is the pinnacle of many journalists’ careers. It’s how they know they’ve arrived in many ways.

The Old Gray Lady has been around for a while, after all.

However, there have always been complaints about bias. The paper, of course, denies there’s any attempt to sway public sentiment, but it’s still there on the page for everyone to see. So, are they lying?

Probably, but it also seems that their reporters can’t hide their own biases. That’s clear from their writing, and there’s reason to believe it generally runs from the top down. Especially when one of their editors decides to leave some rather nasty voicemails for a gun-rights group.

The New York Times said Friday it was investigating an editor for its product review website over abusive voicemails and other messages directed at a gun rights group in Michigan.

“We are currently reviewing this matter, which involves an employee of Wirecutter, our product recommendation site,” Danielle Rhoades Ha said in a statement, emphasizing the employee, Erin Marquis, “does not work in the The New York Times newsroom.”

…

“Hi, I’m a journalist with The New York Times,” she said in one message. “I’m just calling to wonder, I have two questions. How do you sleep at night? Aren’t you just, like, a little bit worried that there might be a hell, and when you meet God he might send you there? The only people politicizing this seems to be you, because you’re the only people I got a f*cking press release from. Again, I am from The New York Times, and I am letting everyone in The New York Times know what kind of f*cking a**holes you are. Congrats on being a laughingstock.”

She added in a second voicemail, “You f*cking ghouls, I hope that there is a God in heaven, so he judges you when you die.”

You can hear the voicemails for yourself here:

Well…she seems nice.

So why would she do something like this? I mean, she had to know it would get made public, right? It’s not like she called as if she were a random citizen who didn’t like the group. No, she makes it very, very clear who she works for and tries to make this appear as if it’s a call in some professional capacity.

Why on Earth would the group not make this public? I mean, this is the kind of publicity they can only dream of.

Maybe she was drunk when she made the call, though she doesn’t sound intoxicated.

Regardless, her response is clearly unhinged. I mean, I’ve been a newspaper editor before. You get some weird press releases and some that you had no interest in running for whatever reason. You don’t call them up and cuss out their voicemail because they sent it to you.

Further, she’s not even correct. While I can’t say who did and didn’t send out press releases, the truth of the matter is that plenty of people have been politicizing the shooting in Oxford, Michigan. Hell, the prosecutor who is trying to imprison the shooter’s parents made it clear that the prosecution is political, for crying out loud. How is the National Association for Gun Rights the only people “politicizing” this?

They’re not.

There’s plenty of reasons to blast NAGR, but this isn’t remotely one of them and anyone who cares to glance at social media should be able to see that.

But, then again, it doesn’t seem like Marquis really cares all that much about reality. What she needs to be caring about is getting her resume up-to-date.

What The New York Times needs to worry about is making sure she’ll need it.