The NYT has added a lengthy "editors note" to the top of Bret Stephens column.
It includes this claim: "Mr. Stephens was not endorsing the study or its authors’ views, but it was a mistake to cite it uncritically"
That is a lie.
Stephens was unequivocally endorsing the study
It includes this claim: "Mr. Stephens was not endorsing the study or its authors’ views, but it was a mistake to cite it uncritically"
That is a lie.
Stephens was unequivocally endorsing the study
Here is the original column, via @ashleyfeinberg. Stephens writes: "The common answer is that Jews are, or tend to be, smart. When it comes to Ashkenazi Jews, it’s true."
He then goes onto quote the 2005 column.
That's an endorsement of the study and its conclusions.
He then goes onto quote the 2005 column.
That's an endorsement of the study and its conclusions.
This unsigned "editors note" implies the problem was not the column but THE READERS' FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND STEPHENS ACTUAL POINT.
That is an insult.
The idea that Stephens was not endorsing this study is a farce.
That is an insult.
The idea that Stephens was not endorsing this study is a farce.
The notion that you can premise your article on a "study" by a white supremacist and then just delete references to the study but leave the rest of the column unchanged is pretty ridiculous.
How can a writer, and his editors, uncritically promote white nationalist pseudo-science and then just say "woops"?
I have no editors, publish 4x per week, and in hundreds of pieces have never accidentally promoted pseudo-science from a white supremacist.
It's not very hard.
It's not very hard.
