Sarah Jeong and the Risks of Social Media

In early August, the media was hit with yet another revelation of a public figure’s controversial social media activity. This time around, the subject of criticism was journalist and new New York Times hire Sarah Jeong, an Asian-American woman whose history of inflammatory tweets includes statements such as “White people are bullshit” and “Dumbass fucking white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs pissing on fire hydrants.” Shortly after Jeong was brought on as an editorial board member, this history surfaced and immediately caused a storm in the media.

The main discussion boiled down to an argument over whether or not Jeong deserved to be fired in light of these statements. This debate, though, is particularly interesting, as it encapsulates several separate discussions within, including the questions of the true definition of racism and the importance of public opinion in hiring practices. Perhaps the most interesting discussion involved was the question of whether or not someone should face repercussions with their employer for controversial statements made on social media platforms.

In this case, the New York Times was correct in not bowing down to public opinion and firing Jeong. However, they probably should not have hired her in the first place. Mainstream news organizations are in an increasingly precarious position, as they try to carefully navigate an extremely difficult political climate. As these organizations face more and more concern over their potential biases, the people that they employ are under heavy scrutiny regarding their own personal biases. Now that the public use of social media by journalists has become commonplace, much of this scrutiny comes from other social media users. In the case of Jeong, it came pouring out after her worrying Twitter history was revealed, and many took it as proof that the New York Times has skewed too far to the political left. Much of the media reaction was supportive of the New York Times’ decisions, and writers at publications such as Vox characterize them as a victory against the causes of the alt-right. But that notion is questionable at best.

This hiring decision will, in the end, most likely serve to only further embolden and empower the alt-right. After all, one of the most fiery and controversial discussions that has been sparked by this debacle is the issue of whether or not the content of Jeong’s tweets constitutes racism. But that discussion doesn’t really matter much when the tweets can easily be hurtful either way. It does not seem in any way unreasonable for a white man to read a tweet in which Jeong describes “how much joy” she derives out of “being cruel to old white men” and find it upsetting. So when a person like this goes to other websites to see if their outrage is shared by others and instead reads on those websites that those offended by the tweet must be a member of the alt-right, the potential is logically there for that person to start considering themselves a member of the alt-right. Writers at Vox and The Verge state that anger over the hiring is essentially unjustified due to the context of the tweet. Generally, the agreed-upon explanation is that Jeong was in fact using a sarcastic tone in an attempt to mock those on the internet who had harassed her. This “counter-trolling,” as Jeong referred to it in an official statement, was a poor move. By stooping to the same level as those who harassed her online, Jeong conceded them all a victory. But most importantly, she made statements that can justifiably be viewed as hateful.

For a news organization whose long-term stability essentially relies on convincing the public that their higher-ups are in no way out to get them, the New York Times has done a great job, by making this hire, of driving more people away. This one decision could have a considerably negative effect on the future of the New York Times. If it does, organizations such as the Times could very well end up reverting back to their practices of firing, or at least not hiring, journalists based on past statements they have public online.

The relevance of all this for high schoolers, then, goes back to a lesson that we have undoubtedly all heard countless times throughout our teenage years. That lesson is to be careful on social media. Sarah Jeong’s “counter-trolling,” while a potential non-issue to those select few with a comprehensive understanding of Jeong’s tone and contextual position, was a major mistake on her part. After all, as we all know, it can be very difficult to understand the tone of what we read on the internet when there is no immediately clear context. It is very unfortunate that the divisive political system has reached a point where social media has a serious effect on the hireability of people, but for the time being, it appears as if our parents and teachers were right; we will have to be very conscious of what we post online, as it could potentially come back to bite.