You can always count on New York Times contributor Nikole Hannah-Jones, famous for her 1619 Project, to get her facts wrong.

It's like the sun coming up in the morning, it's always sure to happen.

Here's the latest pile of manure she's stepped in, horning in on a controversy she knew nothing about, according to Fox News:

The Atlantic has confirmed a former New York Times editor’s viral story of once being scolded by colleagues at the paper for saying he likes Chick-fil-A, after one prominent New York Times reporter said the embarrassing anecdote was made up.

In a lengthy piece published earlier this week for The Atlantic, former New York Times opinion editor Adam Rubenstein revealed that a group of Times staffers were seemingly disgusted that he enjoyed the spicy chicken sandwich from Chick-fil-A during an orientation for new hires. Rubenstein, who worked for the right-leaning Weekly Standard before joining the Times, told the story to illustrate the cultural divide he faced upon joining the liberal newspaper.

"The HR representative leading the orientation chided me: ‘We don’t do that here. They hate gay people.’ People started snapping their fingers in acclamation," Rubenstein wrote.

Finger-snapping? Eeew.

Hannah-Jones was apparently the reporter, and her 'contribution' went like this:

Once the Chick-fil-A story went viral, Times staffers, including 1619 Project architect Nikole Hannah-Jones, insisted it wasn’t true. 

"Never happened," Jones posted on X in response to the story. 

When confronted about her accusation, the outspokenly progressive journalist replied, "I've worked at the NYT for nearly a decade. That's how I know."

But unbeknownst to her, The Atlantic knows people at the New York Times, too -- who were actually there when it happened, and bigshots, too. What's more, they employ fact-checkers who went over Rubinstein's charges with a fine-toothed comb before they went to press, which is why they stood by their story.

Hannah-Jones, without checking her facts, apparently just dismissed the man's story by flashing her New York Times credentials as proof, which, according to Wikipedia, was only at the New York Times Magazine, which is hardly the heart of the operation. 

I won't say she's not still there, but it's been awhile since we've seen her byline. Last I found was a book review (a very marginal part of any newspaper operation often dominated by freelancers) dated February 2023 with an October update.

Maybe there are others. Maybe they just let her tweet.

Hannah-Jones is famous for her errors in reportage, and a real lemon of a hire, at least based on normal newsroom standards where accuracy is a big deal. I can't speak for the Times.

Wikipedia names a couple of incidents:

Criticism of the 1619 Project (2019, 2022)[edit]

Five historians wrote to The New York Times Magazine to ask the creators of its 1619 Project to issue corrections, including for Hannah-Jones's assertions on the American Revolution and on Lincoln. The correction request was signed by Victoria Bynum of Texas State University, James M. McPherson and Sean Wilentz of Princeton University, James Oakes of the City University of New York, and Gordon S. Wood of Brown University.^[65] Historian Leslie M. Harris, who was consulted for the Project, wrote in Politico that she had warned that the idea that the American Revolution was fought to protect slavery was inaccurate, and that the Times made avoidable mistakes.^[43]

In the May 2022 issue of the libertarian magazine Reason, reporter Phillip W. Magness criticized the 1619 Project as "junk history".^[66]

Fireworks tweet (2020)[edit]

In June 2020, Hannah-Jones apologized for retweeting a conspiracy theory claiming that fireworks were being set off by "government agents" to dampen the Black Lives Matter movement.^{[67][68][69][70]}

Now she's stepped in it again, accusing a blameless man of lying, without a shred of evidence, just makin' it up like she's done before.

It does demonstrate the defensiveness of wokesters these days, given that she falsely denied that it happened presumably because it made the New York Times and its woke lunacy on the inside look bad. A vigorous wokester culture would stand up for the finger-snapping and snap proudly in response.

What a ridiculous picture. Now she's made herself the circus clown again and oh, doesn't she fit the picture?

Image: Pixabay / Pixabay License