Thread by @soledadobrien

From the @nytimes:

“Ms. Trump, his elder daughter and senior adviser, spoke to the president about it on Thursday morning, the people familiar with the discussions said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.”

This raises an interesting and chronic dilemma: 1)

Who are these people who speak on condition of anonymity? In the context of a President and an admin that lies chronically, should we infact ever believe what these —particular—sources tell us? 2)

And infact, their ‘shaping of the narrative’ always—ALWAYS benefits Ms. Trump, and actually frequently reads as if it IS Ms. Trump. 3)

The use of ‘sources say’—which I have used in the past, requires trust that in fact it is sources who aren’t wholly lying to shift the narrative. Do you have that trust? I do not? (Unlike, say 3 people who were there, won’t benefit, but need to be anon so they don’t get fired)

The entire thing is framed—in the headline as “Ugly Phrase”. Much has been written about the crowds racist chant. ‘Ugly Phrase’ isn’t even in the top 50.

Ask yourself: who does softening this headline help? Why do it? It’s so... odd.

6)

Mostly, I ask myself how I would feel if my employer framed a racist kkk-esque rally as folks tossing about ‘an ugly phrase’. Whew. That’s actually upsetting. And I’m hard to upset.

Imagine being a Person of Color working at the @nytimes today. Whew.

Hang in there, guys. 7)

Sorry for the typos, you know I cannot spell.