New York Times Redefines Racism    

  By: Katie Petrick
   Published : August 7, 2018

Twitter launched on March 21, 2006. If someone could go back in time to stop that from happening, the world would be a much better place. Because now in addition to your resume, cover letter, and interview to get a job, an employer will determine your worth based on your tweet history. Consider them your character references.

And if you have anything that may reveal bias, character flaws damaging to the reputation of the potential employer, and/or outright cries for violence against other human beings, the likelihood of your being hired will plummet.

That is except if you want to work for The New York Times. While the Times has used the slogan “all the news that’s fit to print” for more than a century, it has come into the 21st Century and should use the tagline “all the racism that’s fit to tweet.”

This would better reflect The New York Times’ most recent hire, Sarah Jeong, who will join the newspaper’s editorial board as the lead writer on technology. Shortly after the announcement by the Times on Wednesday, Aug. 1, Jeong’s Twitter history was brought to light.

The tweets speak for themselves.

Jeong did not limit her attention to white people.

And even though Jeong, a South Korean woman, graduated from Harvard Law School, she felt the need to lay claim against her alma mater.

This amount of vitriol toward anyone would make a potential employer worry about a candidate’s character. The New York Times, however, not only knew about the tweets, but made defensive claims on Jeong’s behalf.

“We had candid conversations with Sarah as part of our thorough vetting process, which included a review of her social media history,” the press release stated.

Jeong likes to tweet hateful comments and The New York Times is completely fine with it. The real issue is not the tweets, but the double standard by the newspaper that has lambasted celebrities and other writers for similar actions. But because the worldview aligns with the agenda of The New York Times, the public is expected to be accepting.

Meanwhile, on Saturday, Aug. 4, conservative Candace Owens posted several of Jeong’s tweets, but having replaced the term “white” with “Jewish.” Twitter took swift action, locking Owens’ account for violating the rules against hateful conduct. This sparked outcry by fellow conservatives for the clear double standard. Twitter then claimed there was an error causing the account to lock, but Owens was not allowed back on the platform until she deleted her parodied tweets. To date, Jeong’s account remains free and open for all.

Again, the issue in all of this is not the tweets that Jeong wrote, but the hypocrisy demonstrated by a newspaper that one day whines about the president of the United States calling journalists “the enemy of the people,” and the next hires a woman with direct intentions of prejudicing whites, men, police, and anyone who does not agree with her point-of-view.

The New York Times can hire whomever they want. The First Amendment is in place for this very reason, and the Times is an independent company that will thrive or dive on its decisions. The company had the decision to not hire Jeong, but it wants her worldview on staff. This just made it more clear to the consumer of the true intentions. Now the subscribers can decide if The New York Times is a company they wish to support.

Like what you see? Support FreedomProject Today!