The New York Times announced days ago that it had hired Sarah Jeong to serve on its editorial board. Normally such an announcement would not be that noteworthy, except that Jeong has a history-and a relatively recent history-of inflammatory racist comments on social media.A small snapshot of incendiary posts includes the hashtag #CancelWhitePeople, along with opinions expressing disdain for all white people such as “Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins” and “Dumbass f***ing white people marking up the internet with their opinions”. And those posts are not from a long time ago, where one might argue that it was a different time and there wasn’t the awareness of how wrong such language is or one could say that it was the overly peer-influenced and flippant carelessness of a young kid. No, these posts are all from when Jeong was an adult and all within the last 3-4 years.
The New York Times said that it knew of the posts when it hired her and were not going to take any further action. The far-left Yahoo News defended the action in a lengthy piece, the total sum of which that her actions were not racist because she was provoked and so it wasn’t her fault.
It is mind-numbing the leaps of logic that it takes for anyone to think that kind of language is acceptable, but only acceptable when the word is “white” but is abhorrent when the word is “black” or “Asian” or “native American” or (insert other demographic group here).
Imagine for a moment if you would insert any other racial group into those quotes and the reaction it would generate, and rightfully so. And imagine if someone had replaced “white” with “black” and used the exact same language, would the high intellect editors at Yahoo News give a pass if the person said that they were provoked by internet trolls from the Black Panther Party? We know the answer: of course not.
It is mind-numbing the leaps of logic that it takes for anyone to think that kind of language is acceptable, but only acceptable when the word is “white” but is abhorrent when the word is “black” or “Asian” or “native American” or (insert other demographic group here). The amazing levels of hypocrisy and lack of ability to apply simple logic is almost beyond comprehension.
This latest incident presents two obvious issues: The most important of which is that if we are ever to realize Dr. King’s dream of treating people based on the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, then we need to apply the same standards to everyone, all the time. By definition, racism is treating someone or acting toward someone differently solely based on their race. Period. The above is racism, by definition.
The other issue is one that is really no longer in doubt and that is that the New York Times is no longer a journalistic media outlet in the sense of actual journalism. One could be forgiven for having lost count of the scandal after scandal in the last several years where they have had to retract numerous stories that have been simply made up, where ‘sources’ turned out to be just plain wrong and now where they are not only tolerating but promoting blatant racism. When this type of shoddy work happens so often, and when in every case, without exception, the scandals were promoting one particular political viewpoint then it’s no long coincidence or accident. The Times has no credibility left from anyone who wants real news. The New York Times is now no more than any other political media outlet and is simply a high-profile propaganda machine.
If journalists who whine about the ‘war on the media’ and are so upset at attacks on the media’s credibility were as outraged about their peers who repeatedly violate all standards of ethics and journalistic integrity as they are about people that point out when that happens, then they might have a lot more sympathy from the American public.