Thread by @wokal_distance

The New York Times helped destroy the life of a college freshman over a 3 second video while it's staff repeatedly tweet abhorent racial insults at white people.

For those asking, the latest jnfo I have is that Jeong still works for the NYT.

Again: THE POINT IS NOT TO CANCEL SARAH JEONG. DO NOT CANCEL HER.

The point is the NYT should not be pouring gas on the fire of cancel culture by giving it the oxygen of credibility...

Destroying a girls life with a snapchat video should not be national news. This is glorified Gossip. A story like that might be the subject of an editorial about how having a digital foot print reaching back into your teens carries consequences we don't know how to handle yet

Or, the NYT could have an editorial defending cancel culture using the story without the names. I would not like that opinion, but it would be honest. But pouring gas on the fire just seems odd, particularly when they have reporters on staff who have said egregious things....

My view is, as I said yesterday, journalistic ethics means not pouring gas on the fire, and making that girl famous for using a racial slur, with national noteriety, I think is a mistake. While I'm glad the NYT let her defend herself and people are stepping up to help her...

Elevating a story like that to the level of national news serves only to raise the stakes of these things amd give them more publicity. The paper of record should not be doing that.

Besides, in a story like this the oxygen of attention incentivizes more of it because...

The names of both parties are now public in a way they never were previously. If someone wants fame because being infamous is better then being unknown (the old saying is there's no such thing as bad publicity) this gives them a way to do that.

I appreciate the reporter did not say "cancel culture is good." But the attention she reflected on to the situation is not good, and I think we need to figure out how disincentivize the behaviour in that article.

There are no adults in the room, and that is not good.

At this stage giving outrage culture more attention, elevating particular incidents, and naming names only serves to give it more power. The NYT should know this and use it's power more responsibly.