Disclaimer: The views, thoughts and opinions expressed by the author in this piece are theirs alone and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of any other parties connected with this publication in any way.
The New York Times published a profile on Nov. 25 normalizing Tony Hovater: a white nationalist and Neo-Nazi who co-founded the Traditionalist Worker Party, one of the most extreme right-wing groups present at the Charlottesville rally where a woman lost her life after a car plowed into the crowd of counterprotestors.
Below is one key description of Tony Hovater that invites readers to sympathize with his seemingly innocuous lifestyle:
With the scenic background of the tranquil hills of Ohio, Hovater’s identity as a white nationalist quickly dissipates into the air as friendly images of cherry pie and familiar TV shows dominate the narrative instead of drawing attention to his hateful beliefs.
The New York Times responded on Sunday to the heated backlash by explaining Richard Fausset’s intentions.
“The point of the story was not to normalize anything,” said the Times’ Marc Lacey, “but to describe the degree to which hate and extremism have become far more normal in American life than many of us want to think.”
Similar to the New York Times’ argument, artist and writer Michael Adno who was based in the South for many years (@michaeladno) said on Twitter that journalists can not properly cover these groups without unraveling how they came about to be who they are today.
“Without work that shows how folks become radical or sympathetic to supremacist, nationalist, and racist povs then how do we combat, understand, or address it,” Adno tweeted.
Despite my evident concerns with the piece, I could see that Richard Fausset tried hard not to inject his personal biases into his writing, and wanted to show the unexpected reality that a Neo-Nazi can frighteningly be ‘the neighbor next door.’ However, even in instances when someone is clearly and undeniably perpetrating ideas of hate– do journalists still have an obligation to be the fair mediators, covering ‘both sides’ of the narrative?
I found the answer to my lingering question recently when I had the very special opportunity to hear journalists including Jim Acosta, the Senior White House Correspondent for CNN, speak at an event on being a minority journalist in the Trump Era. During the panel discussion, Mr. Acosta made a compelling statement.
“There aren’t two sides of the story where there is right and wrong. Wrong is wrong and needs to be labeled as such.”
From left to right: Lisa Coleman (NYU Chief Diversity Officer introduced the event), Mohamad Bazzi (NYU Journalism Professor and panel moderator), Jim Acosta (Senior White House Correspondent for CNN), Darlene Superville (White House Reporter for the Associated Press), Sabrina Siddiqui (Political Reporter for the Guardian)
Referring to the section of the profile softly depicting Hovater dining at Applebee’s on a weeknight, Acosta said it wasn’t the right occasion for tenderness, firmly stating that when something so glaringly disturbing unfolds, journalists have one duty– which is to document the event.
“A lot of people go to Applebee’s,” said Acosta. “It doesn’t mean you are a normal person. We should not be having that conversation now. As journalists, we aren’t here to normalize or sanitize the news. We’re here to cover the news. They are Nazis, and there is no other point of view–love it or leave it.”
Reporter Sabrina Siddiqui from the Guardian (who was also on the panel) weighed in on the situation by comparing the introduction of the New York Times profile to that of another profile in The Atlantic that featured notorious Neo-Nazi Andrew Anglin.
Siddiqui described the Times’ opening, pictured below, as an attempt to show the mundane peace in the day in the life of a modern Nazi.
The Atlantic, however, chose a very different angle, illustrating the real effects that the hateful alt-right ideologies have on victims such as Tanya Gersh who is mentioned below.
“We should absolutely show the public that [these kinds of people] exist,” Siddiqui said. “But you really have to cast light on their victims to make sure you don’t push back on showing how egregious these acts are. Tone can really dictate how a piece is consumed and how readers digest it.”
An Unintentional Normalization of Hatred
Despite the massive waves of criticism reprimanding Richard Fausset, I don’t think he had harmful intentions while writing the profile. However, we need to recognize that his piece has the potential to inadvertently harm, especially depending on what kind of environment the reader grew up in.
Taking myself as an example– I am a college student at a hyper-liberal university in New York City, where Neo-Nazis are often vocally discussed as extremely dangerous. Just hours after the piece was published, I was exposed to many voices of opposition condemning Fausset. However, for someone living in a more homogenous environment where there may not be as much political discourse, it is possible that they may actually believe that Neo-Nazis like Hovater are harmless, and ‘okay people’ who appreciate Seinfeld and eat at Applebee’s just like they do.
In other words, Fausset’s intention to focus on the danger of how widespread hateful extremism has become may backfire, diminishing, instead of bringing to light, the severity of the threat.
Readers certainly have a right to read about different voices and platforms (as extreme as they may be), but the intended purpose must be clear. Had Fausset taken more time to really untangle Hovater’s complex journey from a, “vaguely leftist rock musician to ardent libertarian to fascist activist,” rather than trying to simply normalize his identity, there may have been more to the piece.
A Need for Voices of Minority Journalists To Be Heard
This mistake could have potentially been avoided, and points to a larger issue at hand: the dire lack of newsroom diversity and the systemic forces that work in its favor.
“If there were more minority journalists, they would raise questions that their colleagues may not have,” said Siddiqui. “Newsrooms should diversify themselves because the fact is the majority of newsrooms are white.”
And she’s right.
In a society that touts its achievements in diversity, inclusion and progress, minority journalists comprised a mere 17 percent of the workforce in newsrooms last year, according to the American Society of News Editors (ASNE).
“Your identity is an asset, not a liability,” Siddiqui said.
I am confident that as an Asian American female, I will be able to see and pitch stories that are personal to me and speak for people in my own community. I am confident that narratives that may never have been written will be written, and questions that may never have been asked will be asked– because of the minority journalists, like myself, in the room who speak up.
My dilemma wasn’t about two different narratives. It had to do with morality, and what was right and wrong. And in extreme situations when wrong is so blatantly visible, journalists can not afford to normalize it in attempts to preserve objectivity.
I now move on with the reminder that as a journalist, I will not accept the normalization of racism, bigotry or hate. I will recognize and bring to attention the difference between right and wrong, and when something that could be informative becomes threatening to vulnerable communities. Because as daunting as it may be sometimes to be the only woman of color in the room, who will say something if I don’t?
Questions and Comments on the Piece?
Email Grace at: gracesoyeonmoon@gmail.com or tweet at her @gracemoonnyu
(Cover image courtesy to The New York Times)
Special thanks to Evan Simko-Bednarski, Ula Kulpa and Shawn Paik for helping me shape my ideas in the piece.