Describing journalists concerned about bigoted communities present on your platform as "a mob" is certainly a hot take.
If you want to "share your concerns", the place to do that is an op-ed, or a blog post, or twitter, or something. But it isn't journalism anymore.
Bigoted does not mean right-wing, objectionable, or things one disagrees with.
Bigoted means unwilling to change one's opinion. Which certainly applies to the hard left wing end of the spectrum just as much as it does to hard right.
Bigoted: obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, and intolerant towards other people's beliefs and practices.
If anything, so-called journalists using a platform to express 'concern' over things they disagree with is a better fit for the term. The job of a journalist is to report, not to preach their own brand of politics or dislikes or concerns.
On the contrary:
"""One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ."""
It applies very well to people intolerant of other groups, ethnicity or race.
Please refer to the Oxford dictionary definition if you're still confused.
> Definition of bigot
> : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
> especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Or did you think obstinate devotion to opinions and prejudices only manifests in the the group of people you happen to disagree with?
I don't dispute that it's extraordinarily difficult to get people to change political opinions, especially on the fringes. That was never my contention, I made that pretty clear with the example of bigoted communities I chose being white supremacists. Not sure how you could misread that, unless you wanted to.