By Isaac Schorr
Thursday, February 11, 2021
There is no rule of law in the workplace. Across all
industries, star talent is treated differently — and allowed to get away with
more — than your average employee. It’s true in the boardroom, in professional
sports, and in the newsroom.
Yet even awareness of this truth is not enough to prepare
you for the curious case of Nikole Hannah-Jones and the New York Times. Time after time, Hannah-Jones, creator and compiler
of the Times’ 1619 Project, is
allowed to publicly embarrass the paper in the public sphere with her juvenile
behavior, and to sow discord within it by showing utter contempt for her
colleagues. And time after time, she emerges from the turmoil untouched,
leaving a trail of discarded journalists in her wake. Even more significant,
her signature achievement and the worldview it represents have become the de
facto governing documents and principles by which the Times makes personnel decisions.
Most recently, this power dynamic was exemplified by the Times’ firing of longtime science
reporter Donald McNeil Jr. and its reaction to Hannah-Jones’s doxxing of Washington Free Beacon reporter Aaron
Sibarium. McNeil was let go after a story about his use of a racial slur —
ironically in the context of discussing when it should merit cancellation, not
while using it maliciously — resurfaced. The “incident” occurred in 2019, and
upon investigating it, the Times
deemed it unworthy of punishment. In the new, post-1619 Project newsroom,
however, McNeil needed to be expelled after more than four decades at the
paper. According to Executive Editor Dean Baquet, the Times would “not tolerate racist language regardless of intent.”
And yet, Hannah-Jones had used the epithet on Twitter in the past, and she has
been not just tolerated, not only celebrated, but venerated. When Sibarium
reached out to Hannah-Jones for comment on this double standard, she posted his
polite email request — which included his phone number — on Twitter in an
attempt to shame him.
After posting Sibarium’s personal information,
Hannah-Jones took her sweet time deleting the post containing it. The Times leapt to Hannah-Jones’s defense,
explaining to the Free Beacon that
“we received your message about the fact that one of our journalists
inadvertently posted Aaron’s number when she tweeted an email she received from
him. She’s deleted that tweet.” Unfortunately for the Times, Hannah-Jones had acknowledged the fact that she had posted
Sibarium’s phone number in the replies to her doxxing tweet. The tweet remained
up for nearly two days after said acknowledgment.
Hannah-Jones also reportedly
played a role in orchestrating McNeil’s exit, and defended his firing by
explaining that it “wasn’t necessary [for McNeil] to actually say the word.”
Perhaps recognizing the poor optics of the situation, the Times has since
retracted its “regardless of intent” standard, but not McNeil’s exit with it.
Although this latest embarrassment is perfectly
representative of Hannah-Jones’s mendacity, viciousness, as well as the
liability she is to the Times, it’s
far from the only example.
Last year, Hannah-Jones helped the mob that chased Times opinion editor James Bennet out of
the paper after he published an op-ed from Arkansas senator Tom Cotton arguing
that the National Guard should be mobilized to deal with violent riots across
the country. “As a black woman, as a journalist, as an American, I am deeply
ashamed that we ran this,” she tweeted. The Times
rolled right over, adding a preamble to Cotton’s piece asserting that “the
essay fell short of our standards and should not have been published” and
showing Bennet the door.
Hannah-Jones’s inability to handle criticism of the 1619
Project has been another source of embarrassment for the Times, or at least it should be. Hannah-Jones’s Pulitzer
Prize-winning lead essay for it had to be modified so as to at least qualify
her outlandish claim that the American Revolution was fought to preserve
slavery in North America. Moreover, she has oscillated between making the
argument that America’s founding should be seen as having occurred in 1619
rather than 1776, and insisting “the #1619 Project does not argue that 1619 was
our true founding.” As historian Phillip W. Magness documented in an article
for Quillette, both Hannah-Jones and
her employer repeatedly called 1619 America’s “true founding” when the project
was first rolled out. But after the claim came under scrutiny, the Times wiped out any record of its having
been made, while Hannah-Jones simply flat-out denied having made it.
Poetically, Hannah-Jones responded to the controversy by accusing
critics of her work of trying to “cover up” history.
And then there are the tweets. Hannah-Jones deleted most
of her tweets, dating back to 2017, along with the ones containing Sibarium’s
phone number. So most of the middle fingers, profanities, and other insults
that have come to define her online life have been lost to time. Embedded in
articles, though, some of her foolishness lives on. There was the time last
summer when Hannah-Jones speculated that the government was setting off
fireworks in New York City to disorient Black Lives Matter protesters. And the
time she said
that “it would be an honor” for riots targeting statues of George Washington
and Thomas Jefferson to be named after her project. She’s also said
that “most white Americans have been and continue to accept egregious
inequality against black folks. That’s just true.”
When Times
columnist Bret Stephens critiqued the 1619 project, Hannah-Jones tweeted that
his thoughtful piece
“put me [Hannah-Jones] in a long tradition of [Black women] who failed to know
their places.”
Contradicting this view of things was Dean Baquet’s statement
on Stephens’s column:
Colleagues,
1619 is one of the most important
pieces of journalism The Times has
produced under my tenure as executive editor. It changed the way the country
talked about race and our history. It has given millions of Americans a new
framework and a new critical date, 1619, for understanding the nation’s past.
It has also generated a lot of
debate. That’s no surprise. Work that boldly challenges prevailing views
usually does. A column this weekend in our Opinion section took issue with The
1619 Project. As the editor who runs the newsroom, I do not oversee Opinion or
the views of its columnists. I do welcome Opinion’s role in hosting a wide
range of views, including those that challenge our work.
This column, however, raised
questions about the journalistic ethics and standards of 1619 and the work of
Nikole Hannah-Jones, who inspired and drove the project. 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 — fills me with pride. Our
readers, and I believe our country, have benefited immensely from the
principled, rigorous and groundbreaking journalism of Nikole and the full team
of writers and editors who brought us this transformative work.
Does Hannah-Jones seem like someone who has been muzzled,
or belittled, or treated as though she didn’t know her place? It seems to me as
though she wields enough power to force the executive editor of the most famous
publication in the world to rebuke some of his employees, fire others, and
issue obsequious statements showering her and her shoddy work with praise. If
Baquet were to resign from the Times
tomorrow, he would have the same amount of authority over Nikole Hannah-Jones
that he has today. It doesn’t matter how many times Hannah-Jones embarrasses
the paper. She will not be reprimanded, much less removed from her position,
even though the likes of Donald McNeil, James Bennet, and to a certain extent
Bari Weiss have all been cast out for far less (in Weiss’s case, nothing) than
what she is guilty of. The backlash would be far too great.
Nikole Hannah-Jones runs the New York Times, and the 1619 Project is its constitution. The Times has made its bed; now it must lie in it.
No comments:
Post a Comment