When we look out at the wasteland that is the legacy, dinosaur print media, we are inundated with a deep sense of loss and regret.
You see, these once fine establishments of journalism have fallen by the wayside, due to their own stubbornness at the beginning of the dot com era. Major publishers originally pushed back against the world wide web, claiming, erroneously, that the entire facade was nothing more than a fad. They looked to institutions such as the United States Postal Service, who many were concerned would be decimated by the advent of email, and saw no real worry. They took this as a sign that they too would magically survive the coming information age.
When that plan didn’t pan out the way that they hoped, the legacy media was forced to turn sensational and salacious in order to maintain viewership, subscriptions, and revenue. Now, we have a cesspool of progressive politics with a “resistance” cherry on top, hoping to entice young readers back to the failing platforms.
The New York Times is banking on this sort of controversy wholly in an effort to bring readers back into the fold, and have hired openly racist editor Sarah Jeong in order to drum up interest in the failing paper.
Jeong, whose hatred of caucasians is well documented, apparently has also made more than a few uncouth remarks regarding rape and feminism as well.
In 2014, Rolling Stone magazine published the story of University of Virginia student Jackie Coakley, who claimed to have been ganged raped by several of her peers as part of a fraternity initiation rite. As the piece of Jackie’s story began to crumble, recent New York Times hire and notorious bigot Sarah Jeong, who recently came under fire for her history of anti-white tweets, aggressively came to her defense.
If you're a rape victim, you need an airtight affidavit to be believed. If you've been accused, you can knock a story over with a feather.
— sarah jeong (@sarahjeong) December 5, 2014
Jeong, who prides herself on professionalism as a journalist, aggressively defended the hoaxer as others in the media began to question the legitimacy of her story. In an astonishing blog post that has since been deleted, Jeong argued that the inconsistencies in Jackie’s story only confirmed Jeong’s belief that Jackie’s story was legitimate. “The more I see these ‘inconsistencies’ and ‘discrepancies’ touted as evidence of falsehood, the more convinced I am that Jackie is not lying,” she wrote.
The more we examine the hiring of Jeong, the more convinced we become that this was nothing more than a stunt by the New York Times to drum up interest in the failing paper.