Read on Twitter
The rightwing "outrage" over the Don McNeil incident & who gets to *say* the N-word in the journalistic context has been, of course, expected.But it is disappointing the way journos who are normally thoughtful have treated this as some academic explication of colorblind fairness.
These journalists/others who sincerely, or not, ask, "What about when Black reporters have written it in reporting, does intent matter then?" or "what about when NYT directly quoted someone else saying it?" are *choosing* to divorce the word frm the very thing tht gives it power.
Nigger is the most offensive word in American English. It is *the* most offensive word because for centuries it has been used by a white majority in service of the violent subjugation of Black Americans. That is why most of us never say nor write the word, subbing N-word instead.
You can't discuss the word in the NYT incident while divorcing the word from the history & context that gives it its power. Of course the race of the person matters. It is a racist word created by white people to justify the slavery, racial apartheid, violence agnst Black people.
Clearly, CLEARLY, there is difference when a word created by white people to justify slavery, racial apartheid and three centuries of anti-Black violence is said or written by a white person then by a Black person, the race this word was deployed against.
You can't logically apply a colorblind usage status to a RACIST word used to reinforce racist systems, to the verbal manifestation of white supremacy and anti-Black violence.
Every Black person you know has a story of the first time we were called the N-word by a white person. We can tell you the place, where we were, how old we were, and we can tell you how hearing that words knocks the breath out of you. How it immediately has its intended impact.
In most Black households, a white person calling you the N-word is the single word that justifies you fighting. Like, automatically. Most Black reporters get called the N-word on the phone, on Twitter, in email, at least once a week. The word exists to dehumanize Black people.
To see people whose work I respect debating this word in some abstract exercise about the consistency of newsroom policy is incredibly revealing. With that said, the CONTEXT clearly does matter, as I told @ErikWemple in this piece: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/02/09/what-happened-with-new-york-times-reporter-don-mcneil/
Of course journalists should, carefully and thoughtfully, use the word IN PRINT if directly quoting someone or an historic text and the word is deemed necessary for the story. That is not what happened with Don McNeil.
For the record, I never called for Don McNeil to be further punished nor to resign. I did ask the NYT for transparency. But let's also be clear, there was no need to for Don McNeil to say that word in that context.
My dearest white friends would not use the actual word in conversation, even in the exact same context as McNeil or in any context. They just would not say it. It is unnecessary, that wasn't reporting. They know how that word spoken stops the heart. They wouldn't use it. Period.
