On Saturday The New York Times found themselves in the crosshairs of Twitter after publishing a profile of a white nationalist that many readers found far too flattering. On Sunday, the Times acknowledged that the feedback they received on the profile was almost unanimously negative, and that their national editor (Marc Lacey) decided to respond on the Times' website in an effort to justify their decision to write and run the piece.
The genesis of the story was the aftermath of the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va., in August, the terrifying Ku Klux Klan-like images of young white men carrying tiki torches and shouting “Jews will not replace us,” and the subsequent violence that included the killing of a woman, Heather D. Heyer.
While saying that they first opted to write it after the violent clash that occurred in Charlottesville this past August, the Times said they assigned writer Richard Fausset to learn more about the nationalists who shouted things like "Jews will not replace us" during the violent rally that eventually resulted in the murder of Heather Heyer.
As the Times wrote:
Whatever our goal, a lot of readers found the story offensive, with many seizing on the idea we were normalizing neo-Nazi views and behavior. “How to normalize Nazis 101!” one reader wrote on Twitter. “I’m both shocked and disgusted by this article,” wrote another. “Attempting to ‘normalize’ white supremacist groups – should Never have been printed!”
From there Lacey talked about how the article was received:
We described Mr. Hovater as a bigot, a Nazi sympathizer who posted images on Facebook of a Nazi-like America full of happy white people and swastikas everywhere.
And how they may have missed the mark with some of their intentions:
We regret the degree to which the piece offended so many readers. We recognize that people can disagree on how best to tell a disagreeable story. What we think is indisputable, though, is the need to shed more light, not less, on the most extreme corners of American life and the people who inhabit them. That’s what the story, however imperfectly, tried to do.
Finally, after addressing a few more reader reactions to the article, Lacey ended with this sentiment:
You can read the whole thing over at their website.
