The Times took out all four mentions of “Ashkenazi” Jews in the column online after it was first published, without offering an explanation for that change. The editor’s note stated that the writer “was not endorsing” the view that Jews have superior intelligence. The Times acknowledged “it was a mistake to cite” a 2005 paper co-authored by an alleged white nationalist “uncritically” and said it had “removed reference to the study from the column”.

The Times has historically given significant autonomy to its editorial-page staff columnists so as not to stifle those writers’ views or voice. But that tradition has been slowly changing, as editors apply more scrutiny to the columnists, though there is some inconsistency in how much editing each individual columnist receives.

In interviews with POLITICO, Times insiders described an ad hoc system, with veteran columnists typically not having a primary editor while newer hires are often assigned one. It also can vary greatly, they say, as to how closely columnists work with research assistants on fact-checking and with copy editors prior to publication.

“As we've added columnists in recent years, we've added a new layer of editing on top of our traditional practices, to help accustom them to writing for Times Opinion,” Bennet said over email. “Longtime Times columnists, who have well-established relationships with particular editors, have continued with the approach they're used to."

Andrew Rosenthal, who served as Times editorial page editor from 2007 to 2016, said that columnists traditionally didn’t have editors, though often consulted with one another while writing. Indeed, long-serving columnist Gail Collins has described not having to alert an editor about what she’s writing, though she acknowledged that a research assistant and copy editor play key roles before publication.

Rosenthal said some columnists who began writing for the print edition during his tenure did get editors, as well as Opinion contributors writing primarily online. Still, even without a direct editor, Rosenthal said, copy editors could flag major concerns with a piece to him or a deputy editorial page editor.

“The editorial page editor is their boss,” Rosenthal said of the paper’s columnists. “The editorial page editor can fire them. The editorial page editor can kill their column if necessary.” Rosenthal recalled one instance in which he opted not to run a column, though said the writer addressed his objections in a revised version that was later published.

Bennet took over for Rosenthal in 2016 and his first splashy hire was Stephens, who emerged during the presidential election as a fierce critic of Donald Trump in The Wall Street Journal’s right-leaning opinion section. Stephens, a self-described “climate agnostic,” ignited criticism with his debut Times column questioning climate science, prompting the paper’s publisher at the time, Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., to urge frustrated readers not to cancel their subscriptions.

Both Bennet and Sulzberger stressed how the hiring of Stephens, a conservative, would facilitate debate, yet recent controversies haven’t been fueled by ideological disputes. Last August, Stephens faced a backlash online for his over-the-top reaction to a critic calling him a “bedbug” on Twitter, which included a Times column that seemed to compare the mild jab to Nazi rhetoric.

The columnist blow-ups have dogged Bennet, a former top Atlantic editor who has held several prominent reporting roles at The Times, and is seen as a contender to be the paper’s next executive editor.

Bennet has drawn praise for expanding the opinion stable with writers such as Jamelle Bouie, Michelle Goldberg and Farhad Manjoo, while also launching the innovative Privacy Project, which published a jarring investigation on cellphone data on Dec. 20. But the publication days later of Stephens’ column again brought a flood of criticism to the Opinion department.

“Term limits for op-ed columnists...Let’s make this happen, America!” tweeted Columbia University journalism professor Bill Grueskin while sharing a POLITICO column by Jack Shafer that looked critically at The Times' processes. “If you’re going to edit a piece," he wrote, "the smart move is to edit before it publishes.”

John M. Broder, who has spent more than two decades at the Times, and currently serves on the paper’s editorial board, confirmed in an email that he’s Stephens’ primary editor, though he declined to discuss the bungled column. “There was a mistake in this case, which is why the column now has an editors' note,” a Times spokesperson said in an email.

In the past, Stephens has noted receiving Bennet’s guidance on his writing, telling The Washington Post in October that Bennet helped edit the infamous “bedbug” column. “After that whole thing erupted, James and I went out for a very friendly drinking session,” Stephens said of the August incident. “His line was: ‘We seem to be approaching peak Twitter insanity.'”

Stephens declined to comment on his latest column, which set off a new round of outrage on Twitter.

Siva Vaidhyanathan, a University of Virginia media studies professor, urged critics in a Guardian op-ed to hold Times management accountable for upholding high standards rather than giving up on the paper.

Vaidhyanathan has witnessed the paper’s editorial process firsthand, telling POLITICO that the four Opinion editors he’s worked with when submitting op-ed pieces have been “meticulous in challenging my assertions and disciplining my arguments.”

But Vaidhyanathan expressed doubts that The Times is applying similar editorial rigor to in-house columnists like Stephens, whom he considers lazy and careless.

“Staff writers should get challenged more than the guest writers are. Their reputations land on The Times itself,” he said. “If I mess up, I take all the blame. If Stephens messes up, it speaks poorly of Bennet’s judgment and the whole paper.”