The 1619 Chronicles
Journalism does better when it writes the first rough draft of history, not the last word on it.
NYTimesGuild
145d ago
It says a lot about an organization when it breaks it's own rules and goes after one of it's own. The act, like the article, reeks.
10
This is an profound column from Bret Stephens. Kudos to the Times for running it. The correction of the record needed correcting.
“Almost inevitably, what began as a scholarly quarrel became a political one.” Bret Stephens on the 1619 Project.
I’ll note, again, the effort to conflate the entire magazine issue with its lead essay — and really, a single sentence in that essay — a transparent attempt to discredit a host of arguments and observations from historians, artists, & other journalists.
“Journalism does better when it writes the first rough draft of history, not the last word on it” Don’t miss this brilliant takedown of #1619 Project by @bretstephensny6 in @nytimes
Oh boy. NYT’s Bret Stephens hits NYT Mag over the 1619 Project.
“The 1619 Project is a thesis in search of evidence, not the other way around....Through its overreach, the 1619 Project has given critics of The Times a gift.”
nytimes.com/2020/10/09/opi… pic.twitter.com/Sn8T57Y3un
This is the first substantive instance of critical scrutiny of the #1619Project to appear in the NYT itself since its original publication. Credit to Bret Stephens for a bold and necessary essay.
Good for Bret Stephens for writing this, and good for the New York Times for publishing it. Bret is in a ticklish position: despised by the Left, despised by the Right. I think he is one of the most valuable people in our public life.
Powerful and unstinting critique by Bret Stephens of how the paper’s 1619 Project lost its way. That the @nytimes is willing to publish it gives me new hope for the institution.
Good for Bret Stephens in exposing the central lie at the heart of the 1619 project. And good for the @NYTimes in running it.
“The 1619 Project has failed... The 1619 Project is a thesis in search of evidence, not the other way around.”
Bret Stephens: "The 1619 Project is a thesis in search of evidence, not the other way around."
New York Times writer says the 1619 Project has damaged his paper’s credibility
This Bret Stephens column is thorough, devastating — and, given the ideological hothouse where he works, brave.
It’s good that Bret Stephens wrote this — it’s the latest of many essays in a range of publications on the 1619 project’s many flaws — and it’s good the New York Times published it.
"The 1619 Project is a thesis in search of evidence, not the other way around." — Bret Stephens
America’s true founding was April 22, 2001, the date that “Shrek” was released in theaters. When Shrek burst out of the toilet to Smash Mouth’s “All Star,” a nation and an ideal were born.
Remarkable exchange, in an excellent summary of the #1619Project's shifting thesis.
A reminder of how the Wayback Machine & YouTube complicate Pravda-like memory-holing of earlier arguments that no longer fit an amended official narrative.
nytimes.com/2020/10/09/opi… pic.twitter.com/kVSpxtFenm
Ideology leads away from truth. The 1619 project overreached, far into falsehood.
“It should have made strong yet nuanced claims about role of slavery and racism..... Instead, it issued categorical and totalizing assertions that are difficult to defend.”
Clearly, many white historians and journalists feel it is their burden to tell us America was always for the equality of Black people when there is no evidence to suggest this was true. Just admit you love American mythology more than facts and go...
Stephens' balanced, yet ultimately devastating critique of the 1619 Project should lead the NY Times to reassess the authors, editors, and editorial directions that produced this fiasco.
@nytimes
The 1619 Chronicles
They changed the text of a single sentence.
nytimes.com/2020/10/09/opi… pic.twitter.com/AboIVSLHYQ
Two NYT pieces published over the weekend air the paper's dirty laundry in a very public way, to its credit:
Ben Smith's look at the problems in the reporting of Rukmini Callimachi
nytimes.com/2020/10/11/bus…
and Bret Stephen's look at the 1619 project
nytimes.com/2020/10/09/opi…
This tweet was in response to Bret Stephens' recent article on the 1619 Project.
Imagine writing something this thoughtful & nuanced about a complex historical topic and the Chair of a HISTORY department says: "[you] just want to say the 'n' word"
🤦♀️
My friend @PhilWMagness: Saw the 1619 Project for the fraud it is, stayed on top of it, and is now being cited in the New York Times, which published this nonsense in the first place. Kudos Phil!
Hats off to @nytopinion for giving space generously to an alternative viewpoint on the 1619 project
Measured but forceful assessment of The 1619 Project by the Times' own Bret Stephens.
Add another reason to be pissed at the overreach and naked mendacity of The 1619 Project--I'm now in agreement with Bret Stephens and I HATE Bret Stephens.
It's an extremely well thought out and written piece.
Feck.
@PeterMoskos
5% of black men are in prison in the US today, a higher incarceration rate than in Stalin's USSR
But let's stay focused on what really matters when it comes to race in America: tracking edits in the 1619 project and celebrating the moon landing
An excellent essay on the 1619 Project, its bizarre lies, and its ignominious collapse.
“The metaphor of 1776 is more powerful than that of 1619 because what makes America most itself isn’t four centuries of racist subjugation. It’s 244 years of effort by Americans — sometimes halting, but often heroic — to live up to our greatest ideal.”
I admire Bret Stephens for writing this; and the
@nytopinion for publishing it.
I always think this sort of center-center critique a bit soft. It's the compliment sandwich from business: "Of course 1619 was unique...but every major claim was wrong...but they made us more American."
That said, excellently written piece. Comments?
“The job of journalism is to take account of that complexity, not simplify it out of existence through the adoption of some ideological orthodoxy.”
The concerns that Stephens wrote about in his column are shared by both black and white historians across the political spectrum
Bret Stephen's brilliant, fair, gripping critique of
The 1619 Project
based on
logic
the actual historical evidence
including reference to work by academic historians who have actually specialized in American History.
I think it's great that everyone knows the 1619 date now. But did it take this level of journalistic malpractice?
Everyone should read Bret Stephen's fantastic full page column today on the 1619 Project and the NY Times. Kudos to the editors and publisher for allowing this to run.
The NYTimes is living up to its responsibility to good journalism with this piece by Bret Stephens. Heartening to see. The 1619 Chronicles
There are many interesting issues to debate in this opinion piece on the link between journalism, history and ideology
Powerful article talking about how the 1619 project is important and also convoluted, and stressing the vitality of recognizing the many causes & moments that contribute to history, and the need for a diverse range of perspectives.