Having dug into this a little bit, it seems like Wilder was a casualty of AP's jitters over claims they knew they shared a building with Hamas & possibly allowed Hamas to censor their West Bank coverage. Right-wing activists wanted a scalp, AP was craven.
That said, there's no way AP would have hired a student who had been active in, say, a pro-Trump or anti-abortion group in college, so there's that.
Some of Wilder's college-years statements were highly inappropriate (e.g. a defense of violent threats toward "Zionists" on campus by a pro-Palestinian student). stanforddaily.com/2018/07/23/op-…
OTOH, her post-college work for the Arizona Republican seems professional and not political, so I don't think this is an example of someone smuggling activism into news coverage. muckrack.com/emily-wilder-1…
So yeah, this is a bad move by Stanford College Republicans and whoever else backed them.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
What many derided as "Sicknick trutherism" -- the idea that Brian Sicknick, the Capitol police officer who died the day after the Jan. 6 riot, wasn't murdered as initially reported -- is now vindicated by the ME's report. I was among many journalists who were wrong.
Does this vindicate Glenn Greenwald's claim that the media deliberately lied about Sicknick's death? Not quite.
My debut newsletter at @ArcDigi looks at why not all allies are good in the pushback against runaway "wokeness." It's paywalled, but preview to come...
By the way: yes, the pushback against "wokeness" is important.
What's wrong with Lindsay? well... how about flogging irresponsible conspiracy theories about election fraud (which he was already doing *before* the election!)
I don't want to debate whether this is "cancel culture" (thankfully, Orman is not in a position to be hurt by these loons), but it's absolutely effing nuts.
First, note the assumption that the org. cannot tolerate a speech that dissents from current political dogma. Discussing personal obstacles to wealth doesn't negate "systemic barriers." But no, *every speaker* has to follow the party line. This is a totalitarian mentality.
Second, note the knee-jerk "marginalized groups" talking points. Asians, on average, are higher-income than other groups. Gays, on average, earn more than straight people.
It's terrible and white supremacist to try to drum up sympathy for perps of anti-Asian violence theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
... oh wait this was before the Atlanta shootings and this person was talking about "the optics of a Black or brown person assaulting or attacking" Asians
Honestly, I don't want to be flippant about this issue but this article is such a stark demonstration of how toxic the Current Moment is
What a blinkered piece by @GiniaNYT on #WoodyAllen & "Manhattan." nytimes.com/2021/03/05/nyr…
It's not true no one in the film questions Isaac's relationship w/a 17-y-o. Mary (Diane Keaton) suggests, plausibly, that it's his escape from feeling threatened by the power of grown women.
Isaac is also *not* shown as a man of "unimpeachable moral character." He's shown as narcissistic, egotistical and often dishonest. He's frequently made to look ridiculous. He's also ultimately a sexual loser, like many other Allen alter egos.
Also, the idea that many women in the '70s didn't object to age-disparate relationships was b/c they didn't feel empowered is remarkably agency-denying.
The other day someone questioned whether the 2019 Katie Ishizuka/Ramon Stephens study exposing alleged racism in "Dr. Seuss" was related to the anti-#DrSeuss push. Why, yes it is. (It began in 2017 when Ishizuka's first version of the paper appeared.)
The Ishizuka paper is not only a paranoid exercise in decoding "harmful" tropes everywhere, it's also wildly fraudulent. Here, for instance, is a passage about the racist symbolism of ink stains in a Cat in the Hat sequel... which forgets to mention that the ink is PINK.
Am I concerned about what a rights holder does with some mostly minor works? Maybe not, but I'm certainly concerned when a classic author is targeted for a takedown that peddles lies and omits important details such as Dr Seuss's anti-racist work.