New York Times Magazine reporter Nikole Hannah-Jones was called out Thursday for claiming there is no need to "leave out context and inconvenient facts" from a strong argument when critics pointed out she did exactly that with her controversial 1619 Project.
"If your argument is strong, there is no need to leave out context and inconvenient facts. To do so demonstrates the weakness of the argument and a lack of ethics," Hannah-Jones tweeted.
Accuracy in Media shot back, "Isn’t this what your 1619 Project does?"
Hannah-Jones, who goes by Ida Bae Wells on Twitter, won a Pulitzer Prize for commentary last year for the divisive 1619 Project that aimed to "reframe the country's history" by saying the country's legacy of slavery underpins every facet of American life. The project was praised by the left while also drawing scrutiny over alleged inaccuracies.
Freelance journalist Drew Holden tweeted an image of Hannah-Jones’ tweet alongside a Heritage Foundation article headlined, "New York Times Quietly Edits ‘1619 Project’ After Conservative Pushback."
The article from Sept. 2020 reported that the Times changed the online version of Hannah-Jones’ project after pushback from the right.
"Sections of the online publication were scrubbed for controversial language without even an editor’s note to explain the changes. The edits focus mainly on the thesis that America’s true founding was August 1619, marking the arrival of the first slaves in present-day Virginia," the Heritage Foundation reported.
Five academic historians even signed a letter claiming The 1619 Project got several elements of history wrong, including a claim that the Revolutionary War was fought to preserve slavery.
"Your tweet of the week," Fox News contributor Joe Concha wrote when sharing Holden’s criticism of Hannah-Jones.
Many others took to Twitter with thoughts on Hannah-Jones’ tweet:
Fox News’ David Aaro contributed to this report.