Blocked and Reported - Episode 300: Pamela Paul Answers For Her Crimes
Date: March 21, 2026
Guests: Jesse Singal (Host), Pamela Paul (Wall Street Journal Writer-at-Large)
Overview
In this milestone episode, Jesse Singal is joined by Pamela Paul, acclaimed journalist and former New York Times columnist and Book Review editor. The two delve into topics ranging from gender dynamics in mental health professions, the politicization of the literary world, diversity and gatekeeping in publishing, and Paul's recent experiences with controversy, including the viral accusations levied at her during and after her tenure at The New York Times. They discuss journalism ethics, their shared neuroses about social media, and the complexities of contemporary culture war discourse, all with the signature wryness and candor listeners expect.
Pamela Paul's New Role and Career Reflections
[00:41–04:08]
- Pamela has been at the Wall Street Journal for nearly a year, transitioning from a 14-year career at The New York Times.
- She finds her new position as "Writer-at-Large" liberating, with broad editorial freedom and less rigid assignment structure compared to her days in opinion journalism.
- Both Jesse and Pamela joke about the 'fugitive' quality of the 'at large' title, enjoying its ambiguity and the latitude it affords.
Notable Quote:
“I actually have a lot more freedom to write about what I want to write here at the Wall Street Journal than I did at the New York Times... That feels very freeing." —Pamela Paul [03:28]
Social Media, FOMO, and Newsroom Culture
[04:45–09:41]
- Pamela self-imposes strict limits on social media, preferring to avoid Twitter/X, Facebook, and LinkedIn (except when necessary for sources), mainly retaining Instagram for personal content.
- She discusses the psychological toll of Instagram-induced FOMO and how her perspective has softened, now appreciating others’ travel photos as escapism rather than competition.
- Jesse and Pamela reflect humorously on New York's gritty charm compared to California, sharing self-aware neuroses.
Notable Quote:
"Originally when I went on Instagram, I found it very upsetting because people were taking vacations that always felt like better vacations than the ones I was taking. So I just had terrible FOMO." —Pamela Paul [07:43]
Gender Imbalance in Therapy and Social Work
[09:44–23:03]
Key Topic: Discussion of Pamela's Wall Street Journal article: "What Will Happen When All the Male Therapists Are Gone"
- Pamela traces the shift in psychology and social work from male to female domination.
- 1960s: 68% of psychologists and 38% of social workers were men
- Today: Only 20% of psychologists and 18% of social workers are men
- She connects this demographic change to broader debates about the 'crisis of boys and men’ and whether male mental health needs are being overlooked.
- Pamela highlights the cultural and institutional biases encountered by men in training (e.g., being labeled as the problem in academic settings).
- The pressure for ideological conformity and infusion of certain social justice perspectives in therapy training/programs is discussed.
Notable Quote:
“There are not teams here. We are all on this planet together. And any narrative that is like, believe women or men are inherently oppressors, I find to be really simplistic and something to kind of work against as a journalist.” —Pamela Paul [14:07]
Does Therapist Gender Matter?
[17:29–23:03]
- Both hosts note there is little research on whether men need male therapists, but it may matter in specific contexts (e.g., substance abuse, aggression, male-specific cultural norms).
- Some specialties or client populations may particularly benefit from same-gender therapeutic relationships.
- The discussion raises labor force consequences: as fields feminize, men may avoid entry, further deepening the gender gap and possibly lowering pay/prestige.
Notable Quote:
“If you have very few male practitioners, then it's going to be harder to find someone... So it is a kind of supply and demand issue.” —Pamela Paul [20:54]
Broader Gender and Feminism Discourse
[23:03–33:25]
- Jesse and Pamela dissect recent debates, including Helen Andrews' “feminization” theory, poking fun at grand gender theories that flatten complex realities.
- Pamela challenges “zero-sum” thinking about gender, referencing "difference feminism" vs. "equality feminism" and the tendency for media discourse to lack nuance.
- They discuss the trend of women outpacing men in some educational and early career contexts—while men retain dominance at the top.
Notable Quotes:
“You can have a feminism that acknowledges differences between men and women... I feel like there's an opening there for nuance and just frankly for acknowledgment that men and women are different. And that's fine.” —Jesse Singal [27:59]
“There are some biological differences that I think... even as we try to get parity and have equality with many of our policies, you just can't ignore.” —Pamela Paul [28:24]
The "Culture War" in Literary Coverage
[36:00–53:05]
Main Topic: Response to accusations of exclusion/discrimination against queer/trans writers at the NYT Book Review during Pamela’s editorship; discussion of a critical piece in Lithub.
- Pamela debunks claims that she systematically excluded queer/trans authors, describing the actual editorial process—skip notes, multi-editor review, immense volume constraints.
- She lampoons the tendency for Twitter and literary discourse to believe in secret cabals or “blacklists,” explaining the reality is much more bureaucratic (and often absurd).
Memorable Exchange:
Jesse: “The explicitly anti trans essay in question was titled The Far Right and the Far Left Agree on one thing: Women Don’t Count... Now at the time, do you remember the sort of feedback you got for that piece?” [42:30]
Pamela: “Are you kidding? No, I mean, that piece was beloved... For a lot of readers, it was very surprising... they just weren't aware... and then, yes, some people got extremely angry.” [42:30]
Literary Gatekeeping, Diversity, and Risk Aversion
[58:39–63:46]
- Jesse and Pamela examine “Balkanization” in the online literary world—writers with "wrong" views are iced out of mainstream venues, though readers still flock to their work (e.g., J.K. Rowling, Lionel Shriver, Kat Rosenfield).
- Pamela argues true diversity must include viewpoint diversity, not just identity categories, and notes the self-defeating paradoxes of literary progressivism.
Notable Quote:
“It is to ever increasing degrees, excluding in the name of inclusion in a way that I find like self defeating, paradoxical, and also frankly, financially ruinous for an industry that already faces threats.” —Pamela Paul [59:43]
The Andrea Long Chu "Far Center" Controversy
[64:23–78:47]
- Jesse and Pamela discuss the high-profile New York Magazine article attacking Pamela as the epitome of the so-called “Far Center.”
- They critique Chu's approach to criticism as primarily ad hominem and “not interested in telling the truth about the people she's criticizing.”
- Pamela notes Chu's tendency to define entire ideological camps by their enemies and to pitch “naming” trends (TERFs, Tarls, Reactionary Centrists, Far Center, etc.).
- Both guests express skepticism about the real-world relevance or popularity of such theoretical “movements,” seeing them as products of Twitter bubbles and elite insularity.
Notable Quotes:
"These days, I aim for cruelty." —(Jesse quoting Andrea Long Chu, discussing Chu’s approach to literary criticism) [66:02]
“As an editor, I would have been like, okay, what is the reason for this piece to exist? Is this the best use of our time? You're a literary critic. Like, why publish this?” —Pamela Paul [72:07]
“At the book review we had a saying: You should disagree or be free to disagree with our reviews, but you shouldn't distrust them... that's why we were really rigorous about fact checking.” —Pamela Paul [77:29]
Notable Quotes & Exchanges
-
On male/female differences in therapy:
“Does it matter if you sit across from someone who is like you, or not like you, or the same sex or race? Most people don’t care. But some do, and if that number is significant, supply matters.” —Pamela Paul [20:54] -
On literary insularity:
“Like, if you're a 25-year-old aspiring writer now and you’re merely 70th percentile of American leftism rather than 90th, you're not going to feel very welcome. And that just seems injurious to literature itself.” —Jesse Singal [62:00] -
On online cancellations:
“It doesn't matter that the facts and the history completely belie their thesis. It's more like I am just going... and the other thing I found so crazy about it is, like, guys, you're still upset about this? Move on.” —Pamela Paul [48:36]
Timestamps for Key Segments
- Pamela Paul on WSJ life: [02:13]
- Gender gap in therapy: [09:44]
- On social media self-restraint: [05:10]
- Columbia School of Social Work/October 7th Protests: [12:00–15:00]
- Impact of gendered “zero sum” narratives: [14:07]
- Therapist gender preferences data: [20:54]
- Discussion of Andrews’ ‘Feminization’ Theory: [23:03]
- Book Review/LitHub accusations: [36:00–45:05]
- J.K. Rowling, Kat Rosenfield, and literary “bans”: [58:39–61:34]
- Andrea Long Chu piece and "Far Center": [64:23–78:47]
Memorable Moments
-
Pamela's deadpan assessment of skip notes at the Book Review:
"I remember one was, 'long, dense, French,' and that was the skip note." [40:01] -
Jesse on childhood ambitions:
“Every little boy has a period of wanting to be a garbage man because you get to ride around on a big truck. But I guess as a woman, you never experienced that.” [24:34]
Conclusion
This episode offers a nuanced, witty, and revealing look behind the scenes of American journalism and publishing, interrogating how politics, identity, and ideology intersect in ways both absurd and consequential. Pamela Paul and Jesse Singal provide critical insight into how institutions handle pressure, backlash, and controversy—and why a little less team-based thinking might serve both media and society at large.
Premium segment teased but not included in this summary.