Read on Twitter
This isn’t really an apology and shouldn’t be characterized as one. It amounts to “we had no idea that people would be persuaded by the op-ed we published.” https://twitter.com/AP/status/1294740412595408898
The statement (which again is not an apology) denounces racism and bigotry and laments that the op-ed was weaponized-but points to no examples of weaponization that are distinguishable from just accepting the op-ed’s arguments.
I don’t lightly charge bad faith, but this is hard to explain by reference to anything else.
Here’s the move as I see it:
1) One editor is persuaded by a crank theory and wants to get it in front of powerful people.
2) He can’t just publish it; that would be too transparent.
3) Therefore, a debate between reputable scholars is staged. The crank theory is “on the wall”
1) One editor is persuaded by a crank theory and wants to get it in front of powerful people.
2) He can’t just publish it; that would be too transparent.
3) Therefore, a debate between reputable scholars is staged. The crank theory is “on the wall”
4) It succeeds; powerful people listen and repeat the theory. But others point out that the crank theory is a crank theory with a racialized impact if not intent.
5) Therefore, retreat to “we’re just holding a debate/we had no idea.” Pretend to apologize. Repeat.
5) Therefore, retreat to “we’re just holding a debate/we had no idea.” Pretend to apologize. Repeat.
What’s the solution? I’m not sure. One good start would be to not take the publication seriously until major changes and a genuine reckoning take place.
This statement isn’t that. OK that’s it, done.
