Post by robeiae on Feb 7, 2021 9:39:49 GMT -5
A Daily Beast story: Star NY Times Reporter Accused of Using ‘N-Word,’ Making Other Racist Comments
Man, that title is rough. Let's see some specifics:
Okay, that all sounds pretty bad, yet the NYT opted to not terminate him. Weird. But that was then. Since the DB article came out, the NYT clearly had a change of heart. McNeil is gone.
But you know what's strange? How could the initial investigation find that he didn't commit a fireable offense, given what the "specifics" in the DB article. Could it be that maybe those specifics aren't exactly what the writer is making them out to be? Nah...
LOL, what the ever-lovin' hell? The guy's now a racist for the rest of his life because he tries to answer a student's question...
Man, that title is rough. Let's see some specifics:
Less than six months before he became the New York Times’ go-to reporter on the coronavirus pandemic, Donald McNeil Jr. was under intense scrutiny from the paper’s top brass over accusations that he made wildly offensive and racist comments while leading a Times student trip.
[snip]
After the excursion ended, according to multiple parents of students on the trip who spoke with The Daily Beast along with documents shared with the Times and reviewed by the Beast, many participants relayed a series of troubling accusations to the paper: McNeil repeatedly made racist and sexist remarks throughout the trip including, according to two complaints, using the “n-word.”
A photo from the trip showed that at least 26 students participated. Of that group, at least six students or their parents told the tour company that partnered with the Times that McNeil used racially insensitive or outright racist language while accompanying the participants on the trip, which according to the Times website typically costs nearly $5,500. Two students specifically alleged that the science reporter used the “n-word” and suggested he did not believe in the concept of white privilege; three other participants alleged that McNeil made racist comments and used stereotypes about Black teenagers.
[snip]
Times executive editor Dean Baquet addressed the controversy in an email to the newsroom Thursday night, saying that when he first heard about McNeil’s remarks, he was “outraged” and expected to fire him.
“I authorized an investigation and concluded his remarks were offensive and that he showed extremely poor judgment, but it did not appear to me that that his intentions were hateful or malicious,” he wrote.
[snip]
After the excursion ended, according to multiple parents of students on the trip who spoke with The Daily Beast along with documents shared with the Times and reviewed by the Beast, many participants relayed a series of troubling accusations to the paper: McNeil repeatedly made racist and sexist remarks throughout the trip including, according to two complaints, using the “n-word.”
A photo from the trip showed that at least 26 students participated. Of that group, at least six students or their parents told the tour company that partnered with the Times that McNeil used racially insensitive or outright racist language while accompanying the participants on the trip, which according to the Times website typically costs nearly $5,500. Two students specifically alleged that the science reporter used the “n-word” and suggested he did not believe in the concept of white privilege; three other participants alleged that McNeil made racist comments and used stereotypes about Black teenagers.
[snip]
Times executive editor Dean Baquet addressed the controversy in an email to the newsroom Thursday night, saying that when he first heard about McNeil’s remarks, he was “outraged” and expected to fire him.
“I authorized an investigation and concluded his remarks were offensive and that he showed extremely poor judgment, but it did not appear to me that that his intentions were hateful or malicious,” he wrote.
But you know what's strange? How could the initial investigation find that he didn't commit a fireable offense, given what the "specifics" in the DB article. Could it be that maybe those specifics aren't exactly what the writer is making them out to be? Nah...
Here's what actually happened: A student asked McNeil if a classmate of hers should have been suspended for a video she made as a 12-year-old in which she used a racial slur. "To understand what was in the video, I asked if she had called someone else the slur or whether she was rapping or quoting a book title," McNeil recalled in a letter to his former colleagues. "In asking the question, I used the slur itself."
In other words, in attempting to answer a question, he repeated part of the question. That's it. No wonder Baquet concluded he had no malintent. What adult can't see a difference between using a slur and referring to a slur in the context of a conversation about slurs? But as it turns out, in American journalism in 2021, a conversation about racist language is a priori racist, and in the fight against racism, intent was going to have to take it on the chin.
In other words, in attempting to answer a question, he repeated part of the question. That's it. No wonder Baquet concluded he had no malintent. What adult can't see a difference between using a slur and referring to a slur in the context of a conversation about slurs? But as it turns out, in American journalism in 2021, a conversation about racist language is a priori racist, and in the fight against racism, intent was going to have to take it on the chin.