Skip to comments.New York Times changes its tune on what's too offensive (Sarah Jeong)
Posted on 08/03/2018 5:50:39 AM PDT by yesthatjallen
In a decision that could be only be described as dumbfounding and hypocritical, The New York Times is standing by its decision to hire tech writer Sarah Jeong as an editorial board member despite the emergence of racially-charged tweets she posted a few years ago.
Its dumbfounding given the racism of the tweets. Its hypocritical, considering the Times hired and fired in the same day another writer, Quinn Norton, after old racially charged tweets emerged from her past.
To review how we got here, the Times announced its hiring of Jeong on Thursday. But, like any big hire, a person's past, particularly on social media, gets scrubbed and scrutinized.
Result: Jeong wrote some pretty vile stuff about white people on multiple occasions. The kind of stuff that, if one were to insert any other race, they'd be fired on the spot.
"Oh man its kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men, Jeong said in a tweet from 2014 that has since been deleted.
Dumbass fing white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants, Jeong said in another 2014 tweet.
In a third tweet from 2014, Jeong wrote, Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins.
#CancelWhitePeople was also a favorite hashtag of Jeong's.
Take "white" out of any of those tweets and insert another race in its place instead. How does anyone's career survive that?
"We hired Sarah Jeong because of the exceptional work she has done covering the internet and technology at a range of respected publications," The Times said after the tweets went viral and forced the paper's hand.
The Gray Lady added that Jeong, as a "young Asian woman," had been the "subject of frequent online harassment," and that "for a period of time she responded to that harassment by imitating the rhetoric of her harassers." The newspaper added that Jeong knows "now that this approach only served to feed the vitriol that we too often see on social media. She regrets it, and The Times does not condone it."
But Jeong's tweets show she wasn't responding to anything: The tweets found calling white people everything from groveling goblins to miserable to dogs" were all original, and not replying to specific instances of harassment or other Twitter users.
The paper of record doesn't have a consistent track record on these kinds of matters. Jeongs comments come less than six months after the Times hired Quinn Norton to write opinion pieces on the power, culture, and consequences of technology." The ax came just hours after hiring her. Same deal: Old tweets unearthed, some racially insensitive comments except that the ending of her Times story is much different.
Despite our review of Quinn Nortons work and our conversations with her previous employers, this was new information to us. Based on it, weve decided to go our separate ways, Times editorial editor James Bennet said on Feb. 13.
Im sorry I cant do the work I wanted to do with them. I wish there had been a way, but ultimately, they need to feel safe with how the net will react to their opinion writers, Norton tweeted at the time.
So what's the difference here between Jeong and Norton?
There's also little daylight between Sarah Jeong and Kevin Williamson, whose old podcasts and comments on abortion, as abhorrent as you may find his opinions, were used to compel The Atlantic to fire him shortly after he was hired.
But Williamson and Norton did have two things in common: The mob, something resembling the depiction of the crowds in the Roman Colosseum in the movie "Gladiator," wanted them out. The Times and The Atlantic folded quickly as a result, believing that a swarm on social media somehow resembled sentiment of the general public.
Williamson articulated this perfectly Thursday in National Review. "I assume that the editors of the Times knew exactly who and what Jeong was when they hired her. If not, then it isnt Jeong who needs to be fired its the negligent people who hired her," he wrote.
"If, on the other hand, the Times is more or less satisfied with Jeong, then it should resist the social-media mob campaign to have her dismissed," Williamson added. "It is up to institutions to hold the line against mass hysteria and the mob mentality of social media."
Eli Lake of Bloomberg View also gets it right: "A thought on @sarahjeong. If you thought it was wrong to comb through Kevin Williamsons podcasts to get him fired from the Atlantic. If you loathed the online mob dynamic that brought him down. Then now would be a good time to show some consistency and charity."
Sarah Jeong is an adult in a position of authority writing for major media publications. Her tweets were not written by a naive teen.
There's no evidence her offensive tweets were response to harassment. They appear to stand on their own. The ideas just seem to pop into her head at odd occasions.
I don't believe the NYT vetted Jeong. I believe they hired her without looking into her background likely because she's a woman and Asian and as a double protected class she didn't need to be vetted.
That the NYT said she was vetted appears to me to be a 'cover your ass' defensive lie by the NYT.
If they keep her, every time her name appears on a NYT article or editorial, quote her tweets.
Let her past follow her wherever she goes. The regressive left would do the same.
Birds of a feather flock together, are we at all surprised? really!
The NYT? Oh, you mean Der Sturmer, anti-white version.
And I read somewhere that this young woman is 43 years old.
They both lack melanin.
Never mind, shes 30, born in 1988.
"I wrote things that were racist and hateful when I was young and immature, and have since realized the nature of them and utterly disown them and apologize for the ignorance and tone of them."
and the NYT said:
"We understand, and think she is someone who can show how people change..."
I could accept it, because everyone has had stupidity in their lives, especially as kids.
But she wrote these things as an adult, and she the NYT have not only said nothing to disown those sentiments, they are doubling down, throwing down the gauntlet.
We now have evidence of the racist, hypocritical attitudes of the NYT that many of us have known they possess all along.
Sounds like NYT would proudly hire Roseanne!
Hahahahahahahaha. What a POS the Slimes is. FO!
Shes the perfect NYTimes hire. 50% racist 50% seething hatred. Im
The times hired her BECAUSE she hates Whites. The times has chosen the side of the White-haters. This should not be a surprise. The times has supported bammy.
We are in a civil war. The times is our enemy.
Yes. They're both obnoxious a__holes.
don’t miss the Ken Dilanian/CIA/liberals stuff from 3mins15secs:
3 Aug: Youtube 5mins50secs: Laura Ingraham: Glenn Greenwald discuss the Ideological Alliance between Neocons and Liberals under Trump
“And I read somewhere that this young woman is 43 years old”
Her Wiki has her born in 1988, 30 years old looks about right.
This just cements their base of ignorant Leftwing haters and further finishes off whatever readership from the Center and Right they have remaining.
Do NOT buy or give any financial assistance to the NYTs.
When they’re quoted in articles or television news as some accurate source, dispute it and remind others of theit solidarity with this hater.
“Jeong” must be “Racist” in Korean.
A worthwhile graphic compiling a number of her tweets:
Write to them email@example.com
They don’t care, but this will at least spoil their day.
Just remove “white people” and replace with “Grey Lady” in all her quotes and I will be satisfied.
Once again readers must ponder the age-old question: Is the NYT evil or merely stupid?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.