Just think of how pissed off AG Sulzberger must be about those covert changes to the 1619 Project to have (presumably) signed off on Bret Stephens' double-plus-length column eviscerating it, knowing full well how much it would antagonize the leftward portion of the staff.
If an author complains about stealth editing and has himself conducted a notorious (and far worse) case of stealth editing, then that is relevant. I don't see how it can not be.
-
-
Then you're conceding there was some "stealth editing" in 1619. That seems like the more important issue even if it was less. Shouldn't be any. Look, I've found much of the criticism of it I've read to be weak. But we'd all be better off focusing entirely on arguments.
-
Honestly, I think focusing on digital display copy, done by editors and not writers, shows the intellectual poverty of the attacks on 1619.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.