Anybody wanna talk about the 1619 Project? I'd rather talk about the actual thing than all the drama that surrounds it, but alas, here we are. I managed to avoid the headlines that surrounded this kerfuffle for quite some time, but I am glad that I read this piece. It's a case study in everything thats wrong with the media today and lays everything out in a pretty clear, fair way. I really wish this whole thing wasn't thing at all. And there's precisely one reason that it is a thing: Twitter.
Hannah-Jones is undeniably a rabble-rouser on Twitter. That's her game and that's what works on Twitter. Still, I don't think she deserves even a tiny fraction of the flack she's getting.
I thought the 1619 project was wonderful. I read it in print when it came out. The error (around the Revolutionary War) is indeed, a blemish. The Times (and Hannah-Jones) should have made a faster, bolder correction. But to expect news outlets to be flawless is absurd. That's an impossible standard.
The really bad actors here are the fools who started this bogus "1620 Project" (are you kidding!?) and obviously Tom Cotton, who I really wish would disappear.
Silver lining: I have a more nuanced understanding of this one particular aspect of American history.
I deeply believe that if we can save reading -- deep, thoughtful, critical reading -- we can really create a new and better media landscape, and a more sane world. In a brighter future, projects like the 1619 Project still exist, and they are the catalyst for meaningful, productive conversation. In that future, we all ignore the buffons at the ends of the spectrum who say "throw it all away!" and "don't you dare challenge this; it's perfect!" Our unfortunate reality is that those are the only people we hear from. Again, thanks for nothing Twitter.
Anybody wanna talk about the 1619 Project? I'd rather talk about the actual thing than all the drama that surrounds it, but alas, here we are. I managed to avoid the headlines that surrounded this kerfuffle for quite some time, but I am glad that I read this piece. It's a case study in everything thats wrong with the media today and lays everything out in a pretty clear, fair way. I really wish this whole thing wasn't thing at all. And there's precisely one reason that it is a thing: Twitter.
Hannah-Jones is undeniably a rabble-rouser on Twitter. That's her game and that's what works on Twitter. Still, I don't think she deserves even a tiny fraction of the flack she's getting.
I thought the 1619 project was wonderful. I read it in print when it came out. The error (around the Revolutionary War) is indeed, a blemish. The Times (and Hannah-Jones) should have made a faster, bolder correction. But to expect news outlets to be flawless is absurd. That's an impossible standard.
The really bad actors here are the fools who started this bogus "1620 Project" (are you kidding!?) and obviously Tom Cotton, who I really wish would disappear.
Silver lining: I have a more nuanced understanding of this one particular aspect of American history.
I deeply believe that if we can save reading -- deep, thoughtful, critical reading -- we can really create a new and better media landscape, and a more sane world. In a brighter future, projects like the 1619 Project still exist, and they are the catalyst for meaningful, productive conversation. In that future, we all ignore the buffons at the ends of the spectrum who say "throw it all away!" and "don't you dare challenge this; it's perfect!" Our unfortunate reality is that those are the only people we hear from. Again, thanks for nothing Twitter.