There’s been a lot going on lately, but it’s important not to lose sight of the fact that Nikole Hannah-Jones’ “1619 Project” is still a dumpster fire and absolute embarrassment to journalism.
The story is the same everywhere, though the particulars vary. Where it hasn't happened yet, it will soon.
"Others, including prominent historians, acknowledge privately that the project is riddled with errors and omissions but refuse to say so publicly." https://t.co/OQwP2kd4h6 pic.twitter.com/E3xSe4iU60
— Wesley Yang (@wesyang) September 16, 2021
And Nikole Hannah-Jones still refuses to acknowledge any of that:
It’s actually really unbecoming that Sean Wilentz continues to dedicate so much ink to the 1619 Project, making claims that all these super-frightened historians say the project is riddled with errors without listing the errors.
— Ida Bae Wells (@nhannahjones) September 16, 2021
Ignoring that the the project has been attacked for 2 years, by him, by others, by state lawmakers, by US Senators and yet pretending all these stories professors are afraid to speak up, or even anonymously write about all these allegedly errors.
— Ida Bae Wells (@nhannahjones) September 16, 2021
What makes this even more laughable is the Wilentz’s critique of my essay (which believe it or not, is not the entirety of the 1619 Project) was itself riddled with errors and omissions, but no one ever seems to care about that. https://t.co/fzbeGDSddd pic.twitter.com/KWYWezkQnR
— Ida Bae Wells (@nhannahjones) September 16, 2021
You also might want to check with @woodyholtonusc @NicholasGuyatt Alan Taylor, who dispute Wilentz’s take. And, lastly, historians are so opposed to the 1619 Project that ALL the new writers for the book are academic historians? Cool.
— Ida Bae Wells (@nhannahjones) September 16, 2021
The 1619 Project book, unlike the magazine, has endnotes and every word was reviewed by some of the most esteemed historians in the field. Argument is even stronger now. ENJOY.
— Ida Bae Wells (@nhannahjones) September 16, 2021
You’ve gotta hand it to her: she’s fully committed to the bit. Though, if we’re being honest, she should probably just be committed.
Because she’s delusional. Clearly.
Economic and political historian Phil Magness, who actually wrote a meticulous and thorough critique of Hannah-Jones “1619 Project,” called out Hannah-Jones for her continued insistences that it’s her critics who are lying. Despite Hannah-Jones’ unwillingness to substantively engage with her critics, Magness went called her out in an excellent thread:
The errors in the 1619 Project have been listed in exacting detail, @nhannahjones. I wrote an entire book on them, in addition to writing you and your editor directly to seek corrections.
You ignored the problems, then smeared those who pointed them out.https://t.co/WtLR6lXXPS
— Phil Magness (@PhilWMagness) September 16, 2021
The inescapable truth is that many historians are afraid to speak out about the 1619 Project's problems because you – @nhannahjones – will attack and smear anyone and everyone who does so.
I know this first hand because you did it to me when I spoke out. pic.twitter.com/7xSBiHyVS7
— Phil Magness (@PhilWMagness) September 16, 2021
And here is how Nikole Hannah-Jones responded @coldxman, an African-American critic, after he penned a nuanced and thoughtful essay on the problems with her 1619 Project essay.
Her behavior throughout has been unprofessional, belligerent, and awash in her own bigotries. pic.twitter.com/zng8DI8ynw
— Phil Magness (@PhilWMagness) September 16, 2021
Another example in which NHJ responded to a substantive criticism of her claims by going straight into ad hominem insults. pic.twitter.com/iu5oaYYkc2
— Phil Magness (@PhilWMagness) September 16, 2021
When Wilentz, Oakes, McPherson, Bynum, and Wood each critiqued the substantive claims of the 1619 Project, NHJ responded by attacking them as "white historians."
Same pattern as always: deflect attention away from errors by turning to personal attacks.
— Phil Magness (@PhilWMagness) September 16, 2021
That NHJ now has the gall to claim to be a victim of attacks herself is a palpable display of her own hypocrisy. Several of us tried to engage the 1619 Project constructively and with substantive, factual retorts. She took the low road of personal smears from day one.
— Phil Magness (@PhilWMagness) September 16, 2021
The moral of the story is that Nikole Hannah-Jones doesn’t deserve the benefit of anyone’s doubt, because she is neither a good journalist nor a good person. But that apparently makes her a great fit for the New York Times:
And to cap it off, the NY Times engaged in outright journalistic fraud by making stealth-edits to the 1619 Project to insulate it from criticism an prop it up in advance of Pulitzer Season. The entire project is tainted by the paper's unethical conduct.https://t.co/Z0HOWuAfx5
— Phil Magness (@PhilWMagness) September 16, 2021
It belongs in journalism’s trash heap.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member