The head of the New York Times’s much-hyped 1619 Project concedes she got it wrong when she reported that “one of the primary reasons” the colonists revolted against England was to preserve the institution of slavery.
Journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones claims now that she meant to say “some of” the colonists fought to preserve slavery, not all of them.
The admission comes seven months after her faulty assertion first appeared in the New York Times’s package of essays arguing that America’s founding is defined by chattel slavery. The admission also comes after Hannah-Jones mocked and debased the many academics who directed mild and good-faith criticisms at her bogus statement.
And, yes, the New York Times reporter admitting she got it wrong comes only after a 1619 Project fact-checker published an op-ed revealing she explicitly advised the paper against printing the erroneous claim that the American Revolution was fought primarily to preserve slavery.
It cannot be stressed enough that Hannah-Jones’s since-corrected version of historical events was key to the entire project, the premise of which is that America was founded upon, built upon, and primarily formed by slavery.
But, hey, better late than never!
“Yesterday,” Hannah-Jones tweeted, “we made an important clarification to my #1619Project essay abt the colonists’ motivations during the American Revolution. In attempting to summarize and streamline, journalists can sometimes lose important context and nuance. I did that here.”
In her original essay, she writes:
That passage now reads:
“The clarification is small — just two words — but important,” Hannah-Jones said on Twitter.
Along with not understanding the difference between “all” and “some,” it appears the New York Times reporter struggles also with the definition of the word “small.” Because amending her essay to say that some of the colonists revolted to preserve slavery, as opposed to asserting it was a driving force behind the entire revolt, is a hell of a lot more than a “small” clarification.
Then again, there is always the possibility that she is merely being disingenuous, which would not be surprising considering she has not conducted herself as a good-faith operator since the 1619 Project’s debut in August 2019.
In fact, there are a few things suggesting Hannah-Jones and the New York Times corrected the record not for a love of truth and accuracy but begrudgingly and half-heartedly. First, there is the lengthy editor’s note the paper published this week arguing her original error was, essentially, fake but accurate. There is also the fact that her article’s title still reads, “Our democracy’s founding ideals were false when they were written. Black Americans have fought to make them true.”
Also, there is the rather uncomfortable fact that the correction comes only after a 1619 Project fact-checker revealed last week that her recommendations were explicitly ignored by the editorial staff. The timing of the fact-checker’s allegation and the New York Times’s correction leaves one with the distinct impression that the paper’s admission of error was more or less forced. It cannot go on simply dismissing critics as ignorant, possibly closeted racists when one of those critics is its own fact-checker. At that point, they have to own up to the mistake. Hence the resentful, mealy-mouthed correction.
Unsurprisingly, some in the news media are hailing Hannah-Jones for doing the bare minimum required of any journalist who bungles a story.
“As an [New York Times magazine] staffer who lives in an academic community,” tweeted Emily Bazelon, “shout out to [Hannah-Jones] … for making this change. They’re recognizing that there is a more accurate account of this historical point & adjusting accordingly. That’s what intellectual exchange is about.”
Do not be like Bazelon.
Hannah-Jones deserves no praise for at long last correcting an error fundamental to her entire project, which had been brought to her attention almost seven months ago by multiple academics whose objections any intellectually serious, humble person would have heeded.
