The Actions of NY Times Speak Louder Than Its Words

A funny thing happened on Twitter the other day. Black conservative Candice Owens was suspended by Twitter for “hateful conduct.” What did she do? She repeated some of the comments made by recently hired New York Times editorial writer Sarah Jeong. The twist that got Owens suspended, while Jeong’s tweets and account remained unscathed, was that Owens inserted “Jewish” for “white.”

By Twitter standards, it’s apparently alright to say that “white people are bull–t.” Jewish? Notsomuch. When the Owens double-standard became a national news story, Twitter apologized.

At the same time, the Times is standing by its hiring of Jeong. In a statement, the paper’s leaders said the woman who tweeted about the “joy” she felt being “cruel to old white men” and with rabidly anti-police sentiment “will be an important voice for the editorial board moving forward.” They even admitted to already knowing her tweeting history, explaining it away as simply imitating harassment she’d allegedly experienced online.

Project 21 member Derryck Green thinks that support for Jeong by the Times is a blessing in disguise. As offensive as she has shown herself to be, its support for her exposes its bias:

On the one hand, Sarah Jeong should be condemned for her racist, misandrist and anti-law enforcement officer tweets. Despite what the New York Times claims, these tweets are inexcusable. One would have expected her to be fired for her offensiveness.

But, in the long run, I think it’s a good thing the New York Times hired and then defended Jeong after her hateful tweets became known. Not firing Jeong proves the moral hypocrisy and selective outrage of the political left – specifically, in this case, the media. It removes all pretense of moral authority when it comes to future condemnation of the Times’ political opponents for allegedly saying and believing things it perceives to be racist, sexist or bigoted.

Moreover, based on what the newspaper has previously published, I’d say Sarah Jeong’s perspective is simply reflective of the predominant views held by those employed at the New York Times. Its support of Jeong is just another example of cowardly white progressives hiding behind their “people of color.” This practice permits specific license for members of minority populations on the left to say and do foolish, reckless and offensive things with protection from any negative consequences related to their childishness due to a privilege that’s ascribed by skin color, gender and sexuality.

Other Project 21 members have already spoken out against Jeong, calling her comments “vulgar” and “racist.” Like Green, Project 21 Co-Chairman Stacy Washington noted that the controversy exposed the “leftist privilege” that allows certain hateful comments to be made with impunity.

Earlier this year, Justin Danhof, Esq., the director of the National Center’s Free Enterprise Project, called out the New York Times at its annual shareholder meeting for possibly keeping conservative books off its influential bestseller list. He noted that the paper refused to list Jordan Peterson’s 12 Rules for Life despite strong performance as cited by Amazon, the Washington Post and Publishers Weekly, among other lists. Times Chairman Arthur Sulzberger refused Justin’s request for an independent audit of the processes of creating the bestseller list.

Also at the meeting, Justin was offered a pin that read “The truth has a voice.” When he took the pin and rhetorically asked the person offering it to him, “Who doesn’t like a pin?,” Sulzberger responded something to the effect that Donald Trump wouldn’t. Justin noted:

When Sulzberger made the quip about the pin, it was obvious that he simply assumed that I, along with anyone else who would be in the Times building, was as liberal as him. He was wrong, and frankly his discussions with other shareholders were equally as disturbing.

When it comes to racial and political polarization, the New York Times has proved it is part of the problem. Whatever its editorial pages advocate as a solution will ring hollow, as the its actions to perpetuate leftist sentiments are louder than its words.



The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 60,000 active recent contributors.