"It says a lot about an organization when it breaks it's own rules and goes after one of it's own. The act, like the article, reeks."
The tweet was condemning an op-ed by Bret Stephens[2], that applied mild criticism to The 1619 Project's playing fast-and-loose with history.
--
I find it a stunning display of arrogance that journalists feel free to rewrite history in spite of multiple historians telling them that they are flat out wrong. Do they not understand that by doing these mental gymnastics to fit history to their biases, they are acting in bad faith exactly like a certain politician lying for public approval?
/s
https://twitter.com/benyt/status/1315451891338313728
> Someone else active in the Times Union tells me that a leader of the chapter, who runs the account, tweeted about the Stephens column without any internal discussion, causing a furor in Slack and drawing heated objections from others in the Guild, and leading to this
Dean Baquet, the executive editor:
>That criticism I firmly reject. The project fell fully within our standards as a news organization. In fact, 1619 - and especially the work of Nikole - fill me with pride.
Any dissent got quashed from high above.
A nice reminder that these types are always the loudest, but rarely the best and brightest of the bunch.