The Medium Is the Massage
A quick note on the appointment of Sarah Jeong to the editorial board of the New York Times and the controversy over her previous tweets, which have been unearthed in a campaign against her. Some people are taking the position that this is a Twitter mob, that Twitter mobs are bad, and that therefore she should keep the job, just as Kevin Williamson should have kept his job at the Atlantic in the face of criticism on Twitter. It's hypocrisy, though, to call for Williamson to be fired while supporting Jeong or vice versa.
To me this elevates form over substance. Twitter mobs are right when they're right, and they're wrong when they're wrong. The problem with them is not that they are never right, but that they are so often wrong or disproportionate in their offense (which amounts to the same thing). I don't think it often makes sense to fire someone for a joke, for instance. What happened to Justine Sacco was stupid and unfair. But if Sacco had tweeted something truly horrible, as opposed to a misguided joke, then sure, I can see firing her. Why not? You would fire someone for saying something horrible, or writing it in a book. The only difference with tweets is that they are so easy to take out of context.
So the question, really, is how Jeong's tweets should be understood in context. My view is that they are at most insensitive tweets requiring some explanation (which she has given), but that's the discussion that should be taking place, not a discussion about whether Twitter is an appropriate medium to communicate complaints to someone's employer.
UPDATE:
Here's a similar example.
In case you can't see it, here's the underlying tweet Sullivan is quoting:
The context here is that Johnson was fired from his job at Buzzfeed after more than 40 instances of plagiarism were discovered. Jeong, by contrast, is accused of having posted some insensitive tweets.
Sullivan's gambit here is to imply that these infractions should be weighed equally. Actually, I think his gambit is more cynical than that—I think he is counting on the vast majority of people who see his tweet to assume that the underlying infractions were similar. (I had to look it up myself, most people won't go to that effort.) Either way, it is terribly stupid, and it's a good example of how idiotic most of the commentary has been.
To me this elevates form over substance. Twitter mobs are right when they're right, and they're wrong when they're wrong. The problem with them is not that they are never right, but that they are so often wrong or disproportionate in their offense (which amounts to the same thing). I don't think it often makes sense to fire someone for a joke, for instance. What happened to Justine Sacco was stupid and unfair. But if Sacco had tweeted something truly horrible, as opposed to a misguided joke, then sure, I can see firing her. Why not? You would fire someone for saying something horrible, or writing it in a book. The only difference with tweets is that they are so easy to take out of context.
So the question, really, is how Jeong's tweets should be understood in context. My view is that they are at most insensitive tweets requiring some explanation (which she has given), but that's the discussion that should be taking place, not a discussion about whether Twitter is an appropriate medium to communicate complaints to someone's employer.
UPDATE:
Here's a similar example.
— Andrew Sullivan (@sullydish) August 2, 2018
In case you can't see it, here's the underlying tweet Sullivan is quoting:
Lots of talented people never "make mistakes" and they still have trouble finding jobs. Fuck Benny Johnson's "redemption"— sarah jeong (@sarahjeong) September 6, 2014
The context here is that Johnson was fired from his job at Buzzfeed after more than 40 instances of plagiarism were discovered. Jeong, by contrast, is accused of having posted some insensitive tweets.
Sullivan's gambit here is to imply that these infractions should be weighed equally. Actually, I think his gambit is more cynical than that—I think he is counting on the vast majority of people who see his tweet to assume that the underlying infractions were similar. (I had to look it up myself, most people won't go to that effort.) Either way, it is terribly stupid, and it's a good example of how idiotic most of the commentary has been.
posted by James | 3:46 PM
1 Comments:
Now if I could only weaponize my ignorance...
Post a Comment
<< Home