Twitter | Search | |
Mangy Jay
1/ The NYTimes is densely defending their article by claiming it was intended to shed light on the normalcy of racism in American society. I agree this is a worthy topic of discussion. So, let’s talk about all the things the Times could have *actually* achieved this. . . .
Reply Retweet Like More
Mangy Jay 26 Nov 17
Replying to @magi_jay
2/ First, what did they do wrong? Well, a lot of things. The article reads like a soft-focus profile of a racist who’s really just a normal dude w/ thoughts and feelings. You can write profiles like this about coal miners.
Reply Retweet Like
Mangy Jay 26 Nov 17
Replying to @magi_jay
3/ If you are doing a profile of someone based on their ideology, your job is to get to the heart of that ideology. Your job is to challenge the subject to describe & defend their position. Your job is to then place that position w/in a broader socio-cultural context.
Reply Retweet Like
Mangy Jay 26 Nov 17
Replying to @magi_jay
4/ Otherwise you are just giving a racist an unchallenged platform. The Times failed in many respects, but, above all, they failed by enthusiastically allowing Horvater to drive the narrative of his own white supremacy.
Reply Retweet Like
Mangy Jay 26 Nov 17
Replying to @magi_jay
5/ Here are some ways they could have avoided this: The Times could have asked Horvater what he meant when he said “things have gotten bad.” Or, perhaps, what he meant by "normal people"
Reply Retweet Like
Mangy Jay 26 Nov 17
Replying to @magi_jay
6/ The Times could have pressed his wife on how, exactly, she was politically "lined" w/ her husband. They could have asked her *why* and *how* she began to disbelieve the narrative of how Trayvon Martin was murdered.
Reply Retweet Like
Mangy Jay 26 Nov 17
Replying to @magi_jay
7/ The Times could have included some history of how the term “heritage” has been used among white supremacists (including our president).
Reply Retweet Like
Mangy Jay 26 Nov 17
Replying to @magi_jay
8/ And WTF is up w/ this sentence? Is this a paraphrase of something Horvater said? Because, the way it’s written, it sounds like an objective observation. Writing 101.
Reply Retweet Like
Mangy Jay 26 Nov 17
Replying to @magi_jay
9/ So, the Times wrote about how Horvater helped found the Traditionalist Workers Party (TWP). And then basically wrote NOTHING about the ideology or history of the party. What could they have done differently?
Reply Retweet Like
Mangy Jay 26 Nov 17
Replying to @magi_jay
10/ Well, they could have interviewed an expert on hate crimes & hate groups and asked them specifically about the Traditionalist Worker Party:
Reply Retweet Like
Msbmoran 26 Nov 17
Replying to @magi_jay @NYT
Totally lacking proper attribution. Either add HE SAID or it is the writer's point-of-view. All the editors on holiday break or something?
Reply Retweet Like
Mangy Jay 26 Nov 17
Replying to @magi_jay
11 (They only interviewed one scholar in the entire article. To ask about the number of members) (This is seriously the only quote from an expert in the entire article):
Reply Retweet Like
Mangy Jay 26 Nov 17
Replying to @magi_jay
12/ They could have included info about the TWP's view on homosexuality. . . .or, I dunno. . . on THE HOLOCAUST:
Reply Retweet Like
Mangy Jay 26 Nov 17
Replying to @magi_jay
13/ The Times could have discussed the long history of the “philosophy” underlying the Traditionalist Worker Party’s platform:
Reply Retweet Like
Mangy Jay 26 Nov 17
Replying to @magi_jay
14/ A simple Wikipedia search would have provided the Times w/ the necessary info to place the TWP’s underlying ideology (as well as Horvater) w/in the broader historic & contemporary context of white nationalism:
Reply Retweet Like
Mangy Jay 26 Nov 17
Replying to @magi_jay
15/ And, though we got to see pictures of Horvater staring into the sunset, driving his car, and shopping (JUST LIKE YOU DO!), it would have been helpful if the Times had also provided images of what TWP's members look like when they're on duty:
Reply Retweet Like
Mangy Jay 26 Nov 17
Replying to @magi_jay
16/ What are some other things the Times could done? Well they could have interviewed a behavioral scientist on the psychological traits of white supremacists. How they justify their hatred, etc. . . . As well as the tendencies of their white neighbors to look the other way.
Reply Retweet Like
Mangy Jay 26 Nov 17
Replying to @magi_jay
17/ While they were portraying Horvater as just a typical dude, they could have included historical research on the utter ordinariness of people who engage in racial/ethnic hate. . . .
Reply Retweet Like
Mangy Jay 26 Nov 17
Replying to @magi_jay
18/ And why didn’t the Times elaborate on Horvater’s Holocaust Denial? He has a David Irving book on his shelf. How many Jewish people does Horvater think were killed by the Nazis, for example?
Reply Retweet Like
Mangy Jay 26 Nov 17
Replying to @magi_jay
19/ Or, what does Horvater think Hitlers "cause" was? And why does he distinguish between Himmler & Hitler? Did the Times ask ANY follow-up questions about this???!!!
Reply Retweet Like