A number of commenters have pointed out that Ms. Spayd mistakenly confused what Mr. Deb did, which was tweet quote, with a very different thing, a retweet.
Given that Mr. Deb did not retweet anything insulting, shouldn't the headline be changed here to reflect reality?
Given that Mr. Deb did not retweet anything insulting, shouldn't the headline be changed here to reflect reality?
8
disgusting,no room for this kind of talk ,to allow such suggest 2 standards,for such I would suggest is racist.
2
Social media. The great leveler of the self-centered and the just plain stupid.
1
Whoops! Looks like the public editor got taken in by some right wing trolls. If it had indeed been a retweet, one have had cause to infer some level of endorsement of the original tweet. However, it was a quote tweet. Pretty major difference. And I would find it rather surprising if "not everyone is in on the joke" (although apparently this somehow wasn't clear to the public editor, so there's at least one). It's unfortunate that the NYT uses space and time to vilify one of their own for an opinion clearly not held (as the article itself points out by citing Mr. Deb's first tweet) . Who polices the journalistic integrity of the one policing journalistic integrity?
6
Anyone who can't see that the object of this joke is Breitbart's habit of playing offense by fomenting histrionics over racial fear even after Breitbart readers responded to it by doing exactly that is not competent to be Public Editor. The offense was against Mr. Deb, not by him.
This column is a graver failure of ethics and integrity than anything Ms. Spayd has addressed or is likely to. She's doing harm to both the Times and its readers. While it might be her most flagrant such error, it's not her first. She's the problem she's paid to address. Can nothing be done about this?
This column is a graver failure of ethics and integrity than anything Ms. Spayd has addressed or is likely to. She's doing harm to both the Times and its readers. While it might be her most flagrant such error, it's not her first. She's the problem she's paid to address. Can nothing be done about this?
7
This is the game those on the far right have been playing for years. If anyone they disagree with makes a joke (even while condemning something inappropriate) they lash out, demand an apology, and use it as an example of moral failings for the entire left. Try to hold them to the same standard and suddenly it's PC culture run amok that's destroying freedom as we know it. It's a no win situation.
The problem isn't the tweet or your company tweet guidelines- it's your lack of policy on how to deal with alternative media trying to force how you self censor.
The problem isn't the tweet or your company tweet guidelines- it's your lack of policy on how to deal with alternative media trying to force how you self censor.
4
Astonishing! Outrage over a tweet, but not a single word about an entire Times column that demonized Irish Americans on St. Patrick's Day. Apparently the only unprotected ethnic group are the Irish... the people who the British and wannabes at the Times and on the Left love to hate.
2
Leftist journalists are vile on Twitter. Calling the disgust of casual observers an "alt right smear campaign" is not the way to go. Liz Spayd has taken on a thankless job that's probably too late in the game, but kudos to her.
1
And again the Public Editor ducks the real question: "Why are the NYT staff members such blatant liberal partisans?"
Ms Spayd always ducks this by dwelling on the minutiae of each of these incidents. How about addressing the fact that the NYT regularly show such liberal bias?
Also have to laugh at the idea of "some far-right conservative groups have latched onto the tweet for their own purposes." Please, As if the NYT does not do that every single day, whether it be a Trump tweet or any other conservative.
Liberal bias and hypocrisy is alive and well at the NYT. However, don't expect this Public Editor to ever address that.
Ms Spayd always ducks this by dwelling on the minutiae of each of these incidents. How about addressing the fact that the NYT regularly show such liberal bias?
Also have to laugh at the idea of "some far-right conservative groups have latched onto the tweet for their own purposes." Please, As if the NYT does not do that every single day, whether it be a Trump tweet or any other conservative.
Liberal bias and hypocrisy is alive and well at the NYT. However, don't expect this Public Editor to ever address that.
1
This entire exchange is disgusting. Would everyone have laughed it off if this "Sopan Deb" had referred to Melania as a b*tch because, hey, it's the word for a female dog? Snoop is far too old for this type of nonsense, Bow is the one with the "failed career," and a Times reporter should simply know better regardless of his intentions. Gross.
1
I'm on Mr. Sopan Deb's side with this one.
His first tweet chastises the two rappers.
The second only makes light of an obvious reality. Breitbart is going to have an outrage party over the terrible tweets by Snoop Dogg and his sycophant.
What's the big deal? Are puns really that offensive?
His first tweet chastises the two rappers.
The second only makes light of an obvious reality. Breitbart is going to have an outrage party over the terrible tweets by Snoop Dogg and his sycophant.
What's the big deal? Are puns really that offensive?
5
Why haven't you updated comments since last night?
1
Why does Spayd have this job? She's been way wrong, out of touch, and doesn't seem to understand the dynamics of twitter. Worse, she doesn't research before she has an opinion. In other words, she doesn't do what a public editor should do.
6
Media Matters' Matt Gertz writes that Liz Spayd "played right into the hands" of Mike Cernovich, whom he describes as a "racist, misogynist writer who frequently directs his Twitter followers to launch harassment campaigns," with her column attacking Times reporter Sopan Deb.
Gertz states that "A central throughline of (Spayd's) columns as public editor has been that conservative complaints that the Times is too liberal need to be treated with respect and responded to promptly. The decades-long effort by Republican activists, politicians, and conservative media outlets to convince conservatives that only avowed right-wing sources can be trusted seems to have escaped her."
It's time for Liz Spayd to come out of her bunker and offer an apology to Times readers for this outrageous column. Continued silence is not acceptable.
Gertz states that "A central throughline of (Spayd's) columns as public editor has been that conservative complaints that the Times is too liberal need to be treated with respect and responded to promptly. The decades-long effort by Republican activists, politicians, and conservative media outlets to convince conservatives that only avowed right-wing sources can be trusted seems to have escaped her."
It's time for Liz Spayd to come out of her bunker and offer an apology to Times readers for this outrageous column. Continued silence is not acceptable.
8
Someone said something stupid on twitter? I am shocked and amazed.
2
Good grief! Lighten up, public editor.
You keep on keeping on with the humor, Sopan, we all need some.
You keep on keeping on with the humor, Sopan, we all need some.
2
Ever since I decided to stop paying for the NYT after its coverage of the invasion of Iraqi, I have had moments when I almost wanted to consider to maybe subscribe again. Then columns like this keep me on the straight and narrow. Generally speaking ms. Spayd does a good job underpinning my decision not to renew my subscription of the NYT, beginning with her first column.
2
Sadly, what nearly every other comment mentions here is true: Spayd got had. In fact, today's column contributes to the harassment campaign that was somehow confused with honest (though off-base) criticism. How is is possible that The Public Editor missed what was going on is beyond me. Yes, Deb is accurate when he says " . . . far-right conservative groups have latched onto his tweet for their own purposes" and, yes, "some of the letters [Spayd] received [were] the result of that." The issue, of course, is that the whole thing was only that, the criticism of Deb can be _entirely_ attributed to alt-right "purposes."
Either ignoring the criticism--because there's no coherent valid criticism-- or standing up for Deb and pointing out that the "criticism" is part of a misleading, bad-intentioned campaign are the reasonable responses here. Digging out of the deep hole this columns digs and making things right includes apologizing to Deb and then making it clear that NYT understands that the criticism of Deb was an organized malicious campaign. Mistakes happen. There's no reason I can think of to not correct this mistake and good reasons to make things right. Deb deserves to be treated fairly and people who organize dishonest campaigns should be publicly identified and held accountable for their actions.
Either ignoring the criticism--because there's no coherent valid criticism-- or standing up for Deb and pointing out that the "criticism" is part of a misleading, bad-intentioned campaign are the reasonable responses here. Digging out of the deep hole this columns digs and making things right includes apologizing to Deb and then making it clear that NYT understands that the criticism of Deb was an organized malicious campaign. Mistakes happen. There's no reason I can think of to not correct this mistake and good reasons to make things right. Deb deserves to be treated fairly and people who organize dishonest campaigns should be publicly identified and held accountable for their actions.
3
Every Liz Spayd piece is a reminder of how good Margaret Sullivan was at the job of Public Editor.
The job of the Public Editor is to advocate for Times readers, not for alt-right trolls who would like it to go out of business.
The job of the Public Editor is to advocate for Times readers, not for alt-right trolls who would like it to go out of business.
12
There is no reason for any reputable newspaper to validate and encourage the awful actions of mike cernovich. He does not have legitimate criticisms, he is a professional troll.
3
We saw misguided, inapt commentaries along these lines the entire election season from the public editor. With all the mendacity, vitriol, and malevolence oozing from the administration and its accomplices, is this really an appropriate issue to spotlight? Where is the sense of perspective and priority? Are you really handwringing over remarks that by any reasonable estimation would be judged as innocuous--but maybe if viewed in the worst possible light might conceivably be deemed marginally controversial? Seriously, get a clue.
4
This organized attack did not come from the "right wing," it came form the white supremacist wing. Even without such a disreputable source, the basis for Spayd's column is silly and thin, just a waste of NYT space. But given that she fell right into line with the white supremacist right it is actually much darker. There will come a time when history will judge as all by what we did during this time, especially in response to the ascendence of the largest and most powerful neo-nazi movement we've ever seen. What the NYT, and Spayd did will rightfully be seen as shameful. It already is. Shame on Spayd. Shame on the NYT.
4
Back off people, he's a culture writer.
PS - Shouldn't that be Mr. Wow and Mr. Dogg?
PS - Shouldn't that be Mr. Wow and Mr. Dogg?
4
Yes, said Meat Loaf, referred to in a review as "Mr. Loaf" back in the 70s.
2
Oh how I long for Margaret Sullivan helming this column.
3
I am troubled by something in this response of the Public Editor.
The Times messes up. In the Public Editor’s critique there is the inevitable dismay, as here, that conservative groups, often characterized as “far right conservative groups,” have used the mess-up for their own purposes. That has the effect of diluting and getting the focus off the fact that what the Times did was not objectively proper.
When the Times messes up, conservative groups will make of it what they will. So what. When conservative media mess up, we can be sure that the Times and other liberal media will make of those mess-ups what they will. So what. I grow weary of references in the Public Editor’s columns of the bogeyman of how conservatives can use the Times mess-ups against the Times or against liberal media.
We look to the Public Editor to scrutinize the New York Times from the standpoint of appropriate journalism. She should stick to that, and not factor in the irrelevancy of what she and others at the Times see as the horrors of conservatives’ use of Times mess-ups for their own purposes.
The Times messes up. In the Public Editor’s critique there is the inevitable dismay, as here, that conservative groups, often characterized as “far right conservative groups,” have used the mess-up for their own purposes. That has the effect of diluting and getting the focus off the fact that what the Times did was not objectively proper.
When the Times messes up, conservative groups will make of it what they will. So what. When conservative media mess up, we can be sure that the Times and other liberal media will make of those mess-ups what they will. So what. I grow weary of references in the Public Editor’s columns of the bogeyman of how conservatives can use the Times mess-ups against the Times or against liberal media.
We look to the Public Editor to scrutinize the New York Times from the standpoint of appropriate journalism. She should stick to that, and not factor in the irrelevancy of what she and others at the Times see as the horrors of conservatives’ use of Times mess-ups for their own purposes.
I have no idea who anyone mentioned in this piece is, well I kind of recall Snoops Dogg wore Hilfiger on SNL in the early 90s, not much else. Oh maybe I saw a movie he was in, Soul Plane, yeah he was the pilot.
But anyway, even I got that Deb was making a joke.
We've now seen how the right has taken the left's grievance culture and turned it back on the left.
Read Frankenstein much?
But anyway, even I got that Deb was making a joke.
We've now seen how the right has taken the left's grievance culture and turned it back on the left.
Read Frankenstein much?
14
Media Matters finds serious issue with this column by Liz Spayd. Media Matters is a very credible critic of news media so I hope the NYT takes their helpful criticism to heart.
25
Please. David Brock should not be taken seriously.
The New York Times can and must do a better job of protecting its writers from organized attacks by right-wing trolls. Validating their ridiculous opinion has the additional effect of delegitimizing the Times, and that's the last thing we need right now.
41
Ms. Spayd, this is a terrible take. You fell for a Mike Cernovich campaign to harass Sopan Deb for what was frankly a silly pun about dogs. He was in no way endorsing anything said by Bow Wow -- in fact he criticized it. The "alt-right" smear campaign accusing Deb of supporting sex slavery (!!!) is ridiculous, and for your to give that any weight is even more ridiculous. Of all the things the NYT public editor should be thinking about, perhaps the NYT front-page headlines should come before a culture writer's puppy puns on Twitter?
52
This column is a waste of ink. Why the public beating up of Deb when we have liar in the White House who brags about grabbing women's genitalia? "When you're a star you can do anything".
18
Thank you for your comment. It amazes me that the public editor picks this to write about. Maybe the public editor has an agenda. I don't know that, but it's possible.
Total off-topic and name calling. However it comes from an angry liberal, so the moderators let it sail right through.
Just admit that you have no standards for comments. At least you would be honest.
Just admit that you have no standards for comments. At least you would be honest.
Your reporter made a pun. Isn't that allowed? Plus he did criticize the rapper. Criticize your own people when it's warranted, not for making a very obvious joke.
21
what in the name of christ has gone wrong at this newspaper
23
Liz Spayd
Mike Cernovich is a #Pizzagate troll. That's really all you need to know. This article is a waste of time and Liz Spayd's salary is a waste of the money readers spend supporter the New York Times.
How many times does Spayd have to embarrass the Times before the paper's leadership catches on and fires her?
How many times does Spayd have to embarrass the Times before the paper's leadership catches on and fires her?
39
Intersting to see the rage that this simple call for professionalism has inspired in the hyper-partisan NYT reader base.
No wonder Ms Spayd is looking to placate these folks. They are really angry. Like the moderators.
No wonder Ms Spayd is looking to placate these folks. They are really angry. Like the moderators.
Would love to hear the rebuttal from Mr @MattGertz (please see below)
NY Times Public Editor Helps Out An "Alt-Right" Harassment Campaign http://mm4a.org/2nwaIT9
as well as the viewpoint of the NYT The Public Editor in getting dragged into sectarian warfare, e.g., how much of the background info she has to consider and how to deal with the the Wild Wild West also known as Twitter. Even though it is a go to place for many journalists and all the alt-journalists, they all have the alternative personas and disclaimers.
A lot of scopes and private chatrooms to understand
NY Times Public Editor Helps Out An "Alt-Right" Harassment Campaign http://mm4a.org/2nwaIT9
as well as the viewpoint of the NYT The Public Editor in getting dragged into sectarian warfare, e.g., how much of the background info she has to consider and how to deal with the the Wild Wild West also known as Twitter. Even though it is a go to place for many journalists and all the alt-journalists, they all have the alternative personas and disclaimers.
A lot of scopes and private chatrooms to understand
14
The Times sort of created this problem itself, when it "strongly encouraged" (read: ordered) its staff to maintain a social media presence. It then hamstrung them with a policy that precludes anything but let's make nice, constraints that the president, his minions, and followers on far right sites feel no compunction to follow, condemning Times' staff to bring a clunky Swiss army knife to a gunfight.
16
The NYT public editor seems more concerned about quote Tweets than their beloved columnist, Thomas Friedman, calling for the bombing of Iraq on loose evidence then justifying his stance by saying, "The ''real reason'' for this war, which was never stated, was that after 9/11 America needed to hit someone in the Arab-Muslim world."
Seems like NYT's moral compass needs to be calibrated.
Seems like NYT's moral compass needs to be calibrated.
10
And we must never forget that a year into the invasion, before it got botched, Flat Earth Tommy went on the Charlie Rose show crowing that the Iraqis "suck on this."
He has never apologized for being quite so wrong, and gleefully so.
He has never apologized for being quite so wrong, and gleefully so.
5
This piece was an embarrassment. The tweet was a silly joke, how did you miss that. I purchased a Times subscription last month; reading this idiotic piece makes me sort of regret that.
35
In all seriousness, NYT reporters should not be tweeting silly jokes from their professional accounts.
"Grab 'em by the pussy." - Guy sitting in Oval Office
You want something to be mad about. Then focus on that schmuck.
You want something to be mad about. Then focus on that schmuck.
40
To Sean Casey: similar remarks were constantly made about Michelle Obama but by white supremacists.
9
Granted...but that doesn't make this particular tweet right. Both the tweet and the remark were atrocious.
3
Tasteless remark made by BowWow. A sad attempt at humor tweeted back but newsworthy? Trump is fair game but his wife has been the victim of a threat....no feminist voices crying foul. And what do we call those on the left who attack Melania? Liberals?
1
Dear Liz Spayd:
Everyone knows right-wing trolls are trying to discredit the New York Times and bully its writers.
They don't need your help.
PS: You might want to learn the different between quote tweet and retweet.
Everyone knows right-wing trolls are trying to discredit the New York Times and bully its writers.
They don't need your help.
PS: You might want to learn the different between quote tweet and retweet.
49
Unfortunately, just because the trolls pointed it out doesn't make them wrong. Deb should pursue a career as a comedian if that's what he is interested in -- the NYT pays his salary.
1
Why do you throw your reporters under the bus to placate people who don't even read your newspaper? This is yet another example of the public editor throwing your staff under the bus because some conservative rag got upset a reporter did something on their personal twitter account.
43
Think about this for a minute-- why would a serious reporter tweet such a dumb joke? I think the problem here is greater-- it's that the NYT HIRED Deb in the first place... based largely on his Twitter following. Maybe everyone here-- the NYT, the trolls and Deb are wrong! Call it dark comedy.
Theres so much Trump hating in the Big media. "Extreme Trump hating." It would not be a surprise if big media personalities enjoyed that vulgar tweet about Trump's wife, sad to say. Sopan Deb is very snarky - a nice word for "snide" - about the Trump hating but it does come through in his tweets. If the Times really cared about credibility, wouldn't you have a policy to discourage that? When Wikileaks came out with something about Maggie Haberman colluding with the Clinton campaign, it did not surprise me a bit because I'd been reading her tweets.
4
It was a knee-jerk response that, however amazing, displays the biased thinking that is at the heart of the Times' reporter.
This is a fine example of what most who criticize the Times for it's subtle liberal bias are really talking about.
This is a fine example of what most who criticize the Times for it's subtle liberal bias are really talking about.
5
I think it was a test... of your sense of humor. You did not get a passing grade. Sorry.
Wow. I bow to you. The amount of snooping around you must have done to dig up this meaty scoop is really astounding. You are really pounding the streets for outrageous things rappers say. Keep the punditry howling.
12
We bow wow in awe. The Public Editor is the junkyard dog barking for civility at all times. I wish she had the tenacity to address ever increasing tide of anonymous sourcing like a particularly tasty bone to gnaw. By requiring a social media presence of its writers, but limiting what they can say, and what they can't, the Times has fitted its staff with a choke collar. Are Times reporters Spayd and neutered?
7
He didn't retweet though, he quoted it. You're being dishonest about what happened. You're also validating malicious interpretations from the right targeting a man of color. Stand with your journalists and don't allow yourselves to be bullied.
33
Methinks the man of color threw the first punch.
the snoop dog assassination vid and bow-wow's tweet are hugely offensive. What is astounding is the Time's hasn't uttered an editorial word condemning either. I can't imagine that if white music stars had made a video about shooting Obama or tweeted about making Michelle a sexual slave that there wouldn't have been column after column of outraged invective printed -- rightfully - in the times. What up wit dat?
And Deb saying his tweet was intended to be lighthearted -- ah, what does that mean? Lighthearted?
And Deb saying his tweet was intended to be lighthearted -- ah, what does that mean? Lighthearted?
8
"I can't imagine that if white music stars had made a video about shooting Obama"
You don't need to imagine, Ralphie. Ted Nugent did it! http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/20/ted-nugent-who-wants-ob...
You don't need to imagine, Ralphie. Ted Nugent did it! http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/20/ted-nugent-who-wants-ob...
24
Actually, Big Media played down any distaste/hatred for Clinton and Obama. Chuck Todd said that on TV in regards to Clinton and claimed it was because they didn't want to look misogynistic. Nonsense. They were protecting her. Every Big Media outlet had stables of Trump haters in order to normalize Trump hating and we have the result: Endless nasty hysterical sore losing.
4
Don't try to say they were taking it easy on Clinton and Obama - you know that's now true and Googling that term tells me all I need to know about your media habits. There were (and still are) WAY more offensive and racist and SCARY things said about both Obamas.
12
"Conservatives may use such tweets — or retweets — to further their case that the “liberal media” will do and say anything"
If you're going to judge the standards of acceptable conduct based on what denizens of tinfoil conspiracy-theory websites will pretend to be offended by, the Times might as well just outsource their reporting to Breitbart. Grow a spine, guys. It was a joke.
If you're going to judge the standards of acceptable conduct based on what denizens of tinfoil conspiracy-theory websites will pretend to be offended by, the Times might as well just outsource their reporting to Breitbart. Grow a spine, guys. It was a joke.
38
Seriously. Are they also banning their staff from tweeting about pizza, since the conspiracy theorists seem to think that mentions of pizza actually mean support of child exploitation?
13
Just a reminder to get your pets (regardless of political affiliation) Spayd and neutered!
5
Oh come on. I bet she's been hearing that since 2nd grade.
Live by the tweet, die by the tweet. When Tweet was hired the NYT quoted his "twitter following," which is thanks, in large part to his days as an embed covering Donald Trump. I predicted then that he'd probably wouldn't last long at the Times. Journalists should leave parody to people who are ACTUALLY funny. Sad times that we live in that the comedians are doing better journalism than reporters at the NYT.
6
This is what is considered an important issue for The Times Public Editor to deal with? A tweet?
Ms Spayd, how about you finally deal in-depth with The Times' outrageous and deliberately biased coverage of then-presidential candidate Bernie Sanders? How about you deal with the increasingly conservative oped page, which is now laced with ugly screeds from conservative propagandists from right-wing "think tanks"? How about you take issue with the now-standard practice of Times reporters of referring to the White Supremacist, anti-Semite supporters of Trump as "nationalists"?
In other words, how about you employ your time on issues that are important to Times readers?
Ms Spayd, how about you finally deal in-depth with The Times' outrageous and deliberately biased coverage of then-presidential candidate Bernie Sanders? How about you deal with the increasingly conservative oped page, which is now laced with ugly screeds from conservative propagandists from right-wing "think tanks"? How about you take issue with the now-standard practice of Times reporters of referring to the White Supremacist, anti-Semite supporters of Trump as "nationalists"?
In other words, how about you employ your time on issues that are important to Times readers?
24
She got played.
Of course, so did we all on Nov 8, 2016.
Please keep knives better sharpened NYT. No mollycoddling of alt-right or truthy 'facts'. The republic is teetering & Deb's tweet is beyond irrelevant to the carnage happening to the country under DT. The right will always criticize you--they're just weaponized now to harass and change the subject--don't fall for it.