What irony that The NY Times finally came to the conclusion what the majority knew about potty mouthed Sarah Jeong, albeit 12 months too late. The picture above shows a selection of tweets before she was hired by NYT. Despite that, NYT defended her hire.
CM wrote back in August 2018,
“Was Jeong not aware that 8 of the 12 board of editors are currently white? Not that the board’s racial identity should have any bearing on disgraceful bigotry displayed by her.
The only point at stake here is whether The NY Times will defend and maintain consistent standards it would certainly hold if a white editor raged on about people of other colour. This isn’t a rally or #boycott (please no more boycotts) to get Jeong sacked. On the contrary. In free market thinking the question is whether The NY Times exercises rational judgement and sees that from a commercial perspective defending the indefensible might not be good for growing the business or encouraging a shrinking pool of paying advertisers to rent more space?
After the election of Trump, the newspaper changed its slogan to “The truth is more important now than ever.” For someone to espouse such bitter hatred so candidly in social media forums which have a half life of infinity, her truths are for all to see. The truth in The NY Times’ slogan is also on display.
How could The NY Times possibly hope to uphold the highest levels of ethics and moral high ground by defending her? In her press blurb the paper is effusive with praise citing, “Sarah has guided readers through the digital world with verve and erudition, staying ahead of every turn on the vast beat that is the internet.“ It is also quite telling that Twitter didn’t think she broke the very standards that would see conservative voices banned for far less offensive tweets.
CM wonders what the Harvard Law School has to say about its deeply talented alumni who served as Editor of the Journal of Law and Gender? Perhaps she just missed the ethics classes because she was too busy battling to make sure the correct pronouns were used in the articles on identity politics.”
Now the NYT has terminated her contract. Undoubtedly her contribution was as empty as her Twitter bile. She will now be a contributor, a rather large downgrade from being on the editorial board. She tweeted about the NYT paying attention to subscriber numbers, something the paper might have considered at the start.
Maybe her impact was one which didn’t ring the turnstiles at NYT. It is likely the same reason why The Guardian begs for charity instead of coming to terms with the fact that the content maybe the problem.
Note NYT is offering Aussies an 80% off subscription deal for a year.