Still Employed At The New York Times, Where Facts, Apparently, Don’t Matter


….at least when promoting anti-American and anti-white propaganda is concerned.

New York Times reporter Nikole Hannah-Jones has no training in history and has the one-way bias of a typical intractable activist. Nevertheless, she was allowed to lead the Times discredited “1619 Project,” which asserted without evidence that the United States of America was created by slavery, and that the Revolutionary War was begun to protect slavery. This fantasy not only won the Pulitzer Prize for Hannah-Jones and the Times, but was quickly installed in thousands of school systems as part of the history curriculum despite being pure agitprop. After one distinguished historian after another pointed out its multiple falsehoods, the “1619 Project” was edited by the Times, without being retracted in its entirety, which would have been the responsible thing to do.

As for Hannah-Jones, she has adamantly refused to admit that her work was, well, crap. Tweeting under the moniker of “Ida Bae Wells” for some reason (I’m sure there is one, I just don’t care what it is), the reporter got in a revealing back-and-forth with Timothy Sandefur, the Vice President for Litigation at the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation who holds the Duncan Chair in Constitutional Government. He corrected Hannah-Jones’ attempted rebuttals to a point made by Reason editor-at-large Nick Gillespie and senior editor Damon Root, who noted that Frederick Douglass had called the Constitution a “glorious liberty document” that guaranteed the rights of all—which indeed it is. Hannah-Jones essentially refused to acknowledge the historical record, and did so in the sarcastic, arrogant, insinuating rhetoric that has characterized all of her defenses of the “1619 Project.”

The real question is why the New York Times continues to employ an openly biased and agenda-driven “reporter” who refuses to correct her false reporting and who believes that her role is to distort facts for political purposes. If that approach to journalism is acceptable in her case, why should we trust any of the Times reporters, or indeed the Times itself?

Here is the Twitter exchange, courtesy of Twitchy: Twitchy’s editorial comments periodically turn up between the tweets; if it were not for the hassle of removing them, I would have. They are unnecessary. The tweets, and Hannah-Jones obstinacy, speak for themselves.

I will point out my favorite part of the debate, where Hannah-Jones, having been definitively schooled regarding the historical fact that Douglass repudiated his earlier criticism of the Constitution, resorts to the desperate argument that he held “both views,” one of which she conveniently neglected to mention when she was pointing to the civil right’s icon’s words as supporting her anti-American thesis. Douglass did not hold both views simultaneously. Unlike the Times reporter, he was capable of growth and learning: when he concluded his previous view was wrong, he abandoned it. Saying Douglass held both views—that the Constitution protected slavery and that it is a pro-liberty document contained the principles essential to ending it—is like arguing that Barack Obama is still opposed to gay marriage, that Donald Trump is a Democrat or that I believe in Santa Claus.

Such are the people who are dismantling U.S. culture now.

Hanah Jones 1

Hannah-Jones 2

8 thoughts on “Still Employed At The New York Times, Where Facts, Apparently, Don’t Matter

  1. “Ida Bae Wells” Ida Bell Wells was one of the founders of the NAACP. Bae is what the young people are calling their friends, so it’s a play on words… of sorts. I know you said you didn’t care. But when you pointed it out, I had the urge to Google it. So there.

    • Thanks. I should have, and assumed it was something like that. I don’t care, but I always appreciate new information. Like I don’t really care that Don Hoak was the third baseman on the 1960 Pissburgh Pirates, but I’m still glad I know it.

  2. Jack have you considered the possibility that NYT can’t fire Ms. Wells? Given her character, it is quite reasonable to assume she would attempt to take the ship down with her. It might be easier to employ her than do deal with the follow up. Of course, this would be unethical, but the last 10 years have already established the NYT is not an ethical company.

  3. I added this recently to a post from March on this topic, as this is more currently relevant, I’ll add it here:

    Here are two excellent conversations relating to the recent Anti-American alternative history genre hit series “1619” by imaginary intelligent person Ida Bae Welles, the pen name of actual imbecile and grifter Nikole Hannah-Jones:

  4. None of this surprises me. The idea that someone could change his or her mind on a subject is an anathema to these folks. We’ve seen it repeatedly….the tweet you made at age 17 still represents the person you are at 34. They don’t believe in things like maturity and introspection. That’s why a 9 year old can decide he’s a girl and a 16-year old is a gun control expert and ever will they be.

    In an ends justifies the means philosophy, everything is done for political expediency. For this reason, Barack Obama didn’t change his mind on gay marriage – he always believed in gay marriage – he just said he didn’t agree with it in order to get elected. The left probably believes that and is okay with it. They do it all the time so they just assume that everyone else does, too.

    To the woman sullying the name of Ida B. Wells, Frederick Douglass’ opinions are one and the same and, if proven they are not, he was just an Uncle Tom who curried too much favor with white men to be trusted beyond a few words taken out of context to prove her point. And, after all, whites aren’t allowed to quote famous people of color, are they? Didn’t Nikole/Ida once get schooled by Ted Cruz on who is and isn’t allowed to quote MLK?

  5. Atheist apologists play this trick as well, when pulling earlier quotes from Abraham Lincoln or Ben Franklin, both of whom expressed religious skepticism at one time, and then changed their minds after giving the issue serious thought. The idea of changing one’s mind after giving anything serious thought just seems impossible to some people, who lack experience doing either.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.