© 2018 Jim Spence - Let’s see. Where do you start with the New York Times? Let’s
start with its publisher Arthur Sulzberger who found himself in a bit of tussle
with Donald Trump recently. It seems that Sulzberger sincerely objects to “inflammatory
rhetoric.” Accordingly, Sulzberger decided to take Trump to task on Trump’s nasty suggestion that the news media with all of its biases, has become the “enemy
of the people.” This is dangerous according to Sulzberger and most reasonable people including Trump's daughter would tend to agree.
Nobly, Mr. Sulzberger feels that the press has a sacred
duty to hold people “accountable” for saying inflammatory things. Hold
that thought for a few paragraphs.
Sulzberger is no dummy. He is a Harvard man. He graduated in
1985 from Harvard’s Business School in its, Program for Management Development.
Sulzberger has apparently developed himself into quite a manager. So much so,
that Sulzberger is an extremely powerful man in his own right. While print
media is certainly dying, the New York Times has gone about the business of transforming
itself. The Times is the most visited newspaper site online, with more than
twice as many unique visitors as the next most popular news site. Now that is real
power.
Fortunately, the Times thinks of itself as an enlightened news
media entity. In particular the Times prides itself on being ardently anti-racist. And the paper
will not hesitate to call out those who violate the Times ultra-high standards
for civil discourse and fair treatment of people, especially when it comes to
skin color. How else can one explain the addition to the Times editorial board
of Sarah Jeong?
Sarah Jeong comes to the New York Times after a stint with The
Verge (verge.com) which is a technology news and media network operated by Vox
Media in New York City. Jeong authored, “The Internet of Garbage.” Like Sulzberger, Jeong is
also a Harvard grad. Here is an excerpt from her book:
“Content platforms and social media networks do not have the
power to restrain stalkers, end intimate partner violence, eliminate child
abuse, or stop street harassment. But they can cultivate better interactions
and better discourse, through thoughtful architecture, active moderation and
community management.”
Apparently, a few Twitter users did some due diligence on
Jeong and turned up a few tweets of hers to demonstrate just how committed she
is to "moderation" and “better discourse.”
Here is a small sample of Jeong’s tweets:
November 2014 - “Dumbass f**king white people marking up the
internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.”
December 2014 – “Are white people genetically pre-disposed
to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground
like groveling goblins”
April 2014 – “Have you ever tried to figure out all the
things that white people do that aren’t cultural appropriation”
April 2014 – “It must be so boring to be white”
July 2014 - “oh man
it’s kind of sick how much joy I get from being cruel to old white men.”
And last but certainly not least:
November 2014 - #CancelWhitePeople
Of course there are many more truly enlightening tweets by Jeong, but this
sampling ought to be enough so that everyone gets the picture. Here’s where Times
publisher Sulzberger comes in. The Times, no doubt with the approval of
Sulzberger, defended Jeong as clearly the number one candidate for the opening
on the paper’s editorial board.
“We had candid conversations with Jeong about her tweets and
are, confident that she will be an important voice for the editorial board
moving forward,” the Times said.
Well there you go. Thank God the New York Times is an
enlightened media entity that prides itself as being ardently anti-racist and
is willing to oppose all inflammatory rhetoric.
This hiring should tell you what you need to know about the Times. What a buffer Jeong figures to provide for some of the rhetoric that might otherwise make it into print.
Know this. The Times simply objects to Trump roughing the paper up with, well, you know…….harsh words. Despite everything Trump does, the Times still stands tall and well above the fray. The paper simply added an editorial
board member who is an enemy of “white people.” There’s nothing racist about wanting to “cancel” white people is there?
Unless you are a bumpkin who didn't go to....well.....you know.....Harvard or some other trendy Ivy League school, you may not grasp the nuance of all this.
Posts
