This is the first NYT article discussing Jeong with comments enabled. They are absolutely brutal. Maybe the NYT shouldn't have assumed their average lib reader thinks about race issues the same way as blue-haired twitter dykes?

Top five reader picks:

SMK NC

Charlotte, NCAug. 9

While I agree someone should be hired on the totality of their work, it’d be nice to see some evidence of self discipline on their part to refrain from tweeting anything and everything that comes to mind.

110,000 tweets? Did she ever think of something and NOT say it?

813 RecommendShare

Common Sense

NYCAug. 9

This author excuses the tweets as part of a body of work shared through Twitter that was poorly thought through, crafted in haste. Therefore the tweets don't count and this journalist must remain at the NYT. However what these tweets show is that this journalist consistently misused the tools of her craft - words and ideas - in a way that was shockingly immature. There's an old Sunday school lesson about gossiping and meanness: A pastor gives young children a tube of toothpaste and says squeeze. Then he says put the toothpaste back, which is clearly impossible. The lesson: Once words leave your mouth, or phone, they can't be taken back - they are permanent.

Respect your words. This journalist did not and should not remain at the NYT.

709 RecommendShare

Nancy

Great NeckAug. 9

Let he who is without a bad tweet cast the first stone.

[ Fine, then I will cast away.

The New York Times does not need to have a person who writes racist comments writing for the Times. ]

689 RecommendShare

James

St. Paul, MN.Aug. 9

Times Pick

My argument is a bit simpler. Of all the possible people to hire, I am certain that both the Atlantic and the New York Times could manage to find somebody who is both well qualified and does not have a record of hateful rhetoric. The search may have required just a bit more time and effort, but it would have been time and effort well spent.

675 RecommendShare

Anonymous

MassachusettsAug. 9

Times Pick

Of course the tweets don't reflect the "core truth of who she is". I"m sure she's lovely - and was undoubtedly provoked - but that's not the point. This wasn't one racist tweet, it was a pattern of behavior; a choice. It's unfathomable to me that the NYT would put her on the editorial board. I'm dismayed, and that's why I canceled my subscription.

660 RecommendShare

(https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4048074&forum_id=2#36590765)

Washington Post comes out in defense of Sarah "fuck whitey" Jeong

(https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4048074&forum_id=2#36591256)

My own misgivings about Jeong’s tweets have less to do with their substance than with their often snarky tone, occasional meanness, and sheer number: 103,000 over some nine years, averaging about 31 tweets a day. (Donald Trump only averages 11.)

(https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4048074&forum_id=2#36591297)

acblack

DelawareAug. 9

Times Pick

I hope the NYT reads the comments carefully. The comments suggest that there is a sizable population of reasonable and decent people who are bothered by her tweets and don't excuse them as "ironic" or "performative." I hope Jeong and her defenders don't assume all the criticism they hear is coming from alt-right trolls and therefore feel it is ok to ignore.

(https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4048074&forum_id=2#36591309)

“In social media posts, our journalists must not express partisan opinions, promote political views, endorse candidates, make offensive comments or do anything else that undercuts The Times’s journalistic reputation,” read one of the guidelines made public by the Times. “Our journalists should be especially mindful of appearing to take sides on issues that The Times is seeking to cover objectively.”

(https://autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4048074&forum_id=2#36591372)