@scribejones @onesarahjones 1. The article focuses on exactly what the written response acknowledges is the real problem: that members disagree on how best to fight racial oppression, esp. in a majority-white org. (Note how "implies" is a lot of work here.) 
@scribejones @onesarahjones 2. I read the "documentation" and "additional statements" that supposedly contain the relevant missing information for this incident. Didn't find much of anything!(Screenshots: Article Response, July DSA chair statement, how it's presented in Salazar's article)
@scribejones @onesarahjones 3. There's nothing in those links that I found "exculpatory." Certainly sounds like a charged situation — evidenced by the chairs releasing a long statement about it in July. DSA cites its procedural rules, and Tur-ha Ak called those rules racist. Article reports on the conflict
@scribejones @onesarahjones 4. Response accuses @miguelxsalazar of "journalistic malpractice" for not linking to Gong's full statement on endorsing Brooks, suggesting if he had, readers would realize he quoted it unfairly. Well I read the full statement? And it certainly reinforces conflict in TNR story
@scribejones @onesarahjones @miguelxsalazar 5. And just the whole argument that not including quotes from every person you interview is "a hallmark of propaganda, not serious journalism" is really wrong. I understand reporting is not transparent enough to the gen public, but that doesn't mean process was done improperly
@scribejones @onesarahjones @miguelxsalazar 6. The very fact that everyone seems to agree that @miguelxsalazar spent "dozens of hours" conducting interviews with scores of members tells me this wasn't "shoddy reporting." Including w/ people who wouldn't go on record
