“Dumba$$ F**king White-Men”-Hating NYTimes Editor Has Left Board

The tech journalist who joined the New York Times’ editorial board last year despite her history of anti-white tweets complaining about how she hates “dumba** f**king white people’ has recently left the position, CNN’s Oliver Darcy reports.

According to Darcy, Sarah Jeong left the NYT editorial board in August. She’s now a “contracted contributor” for NYT Opinion.

Bit of news: @sarahjeong has left The New York Times editorial board. She’s now a contracted contributor for NYT Opinion. https://t.co/1kmYw7Rwua pic.twitter.com/d3RLjvliap

— Oliver Darcy (@oliverdarcy) September 28, 2019

In a statement emailed to CNN, Jeong took credit for her decision to quit and said she’ll now be able to “go back to reporting and writing long features while still being involved with NYT Opinion section on tech issues.” The decision was hard, Jeong said, “because of the many wonderful colleagues I would have to leave behind, but I made the change so I can work on what I want to work on in the immediate moment.”

Sarah Jeong

Though we imagine the controversy over her tweets – sent several years before she joined the Grey Lady – probably overshadowed her joining the editorial board back in August 2018, CNN’s sources claim her departure is tied to a more recent controversy.

This past week, during a twitter row over the NYT’s decision to identify the Ukraine ‘whistleblower’ as a CIA officer, Jeong tweeted a comment that was reportedly interpreted by many of her colleagues as a call to unsubscribe.

After another twitter user tweeted that cancelling NYT subscriptions simply hurts hard-working journalists, Jeong chimed in with a correction.

“You’re wrong,” Jeong responded. “NYT does pay attention to subscriber cancellations. It’s one of the metrics for ‘outrage’ that they take to distinguish between ‘real’ outrage and superficial outrage. What subscribers say can back up dissenting views inside the paper about what it should do and be.”

You’re wrong. NYT does pay attention to subscriber cancellations. It’s one of the metrics for “outrage” that they take to distinguish between “real” outrage and superficial outrage. What subscribers say can back up dissenting views inside the paper about what it should do and be.

— sarah jeong (@sarahjeong) September 27, 2019

Jeoong insisted to CNN that the comment wasn’t intended as a call to unsubscribe. However, she expressed to CNN that she was tired of being cited as a reason for readers to resist the urge to cancel their subscriptions:  “I’m just weary of having my name and my work invoked as a reason to not boycott. A lot of people have done and continue to do great work at the Times. But if a reader has real, good-faith objections to certain editorial decisions, the fact that the paper has done great work doesn’t negate those objections.”

We imagine her former employer greatly appreciated that comment.

Between the multiple controversies, clearly, somebody wasn’t ‘paper trained’: