Sarah Jeong, newly hired at the New York Times, is a racist who stripped a rape victim of her anonymity. Picture CC-3.0 via Wikimedia Commons.

Recently, newly hired New York Times editorial board member Sarah Jeong has come under hire for racist tweets. The racism however is by no means her only Twitter faux pas. In January 2016 Jeong doxed a rape victim by identifying her. In the United Kingdom, naming a victim of sexual assault is illegal unless they waive their right to anonymity. In the United States it is not usually a crime to name a rape victim, but it is one of journalism’s stronger moral taboos and most ethical journalists will not. Of particular note, Jeong republished the identity of the victim in a blog post knowing she and her husband objected and knowing that Newsweek had taken it down. The Times did not deny the allegations, but did appear to distance Executive Editor from the hire, claiming he had nothing to do with it.

In the United Kingdom and many other states rape victims are entitled to anonymity. In the UK, naming a victim of rape is a crime under s1 and s5 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992 unless they waive the anonymity. In the United States it is merely unethical but although the Supreme Court has upheld a First Amendment right to deviate from the norm, it is generally considered serious ethical wrongdoing.

Sarah Jeong had been involved in an argument over the content of an online article, which had contained a link that Jeong felt trivialised a rape threat. The dispute was covered in Newsweek’s “Today in Tabs” section. A woman (I have deliberately anonymised) wrote a letter to Tabs complaining about the article and revealing her status as a rape victim. The author of the piece, Rusty Foster, published the letter claiming it was “in the interests of fairness”. After complaints the letter was taken down on ethical grounds just leaving the woman’s legal concerns.

The rape victim’s anonymity was restored. Until in January 2016 the woman’s identity was republished on Jeong’s blog. At the time, I contacted the victim via her husband and respectfully requested permission to write about it, which was granted. In my article I also wrote about Jeong’s friendly online interactions (archive) with Sarah Nyberg, who claimed to be a white nationalist paedophile (archive). I linked to her Jeong’s express opposition to revenge pornography laws (archive).

As my earlier article noted, quoting her, Jeong realised her blog post would lead to the victim being harassed all over again and in that knowledge posted her name. She also despicably accused the husband of using the woman’s victim status as a “weapon”.

I decided to put these allegations to the New York Times. It is clear the Times is feeling the heat. I use a legal off-the-shelf email tracker to ensure my emails are read. I checked it just under 90 minutes after sending. There had been 620 views. Shortly before the deadline the Times responded to my inquiry –

“First –  Sarah was hired to write for the editorial board, which is separate and apart from the newsroom. Dean Baquet had nothing to do with her hire or her employment status. Second – Sarah herself has written about these incidents, so the fact is nothing has been “uncovered” here. Third – Your inquiry is an example of criticism from a very nasty world of people who take things out of context to weave a story to fit their agenda. We intend to protect Sarah and other New York Times staff from that kind of attack.”

The Times appears to admit my allegation, and their explanation is risible. They said that Jeong had written about the incidents. I fail to see how this defends or excuses the behaviour. Jeong did indeed write about the doxing incident, whilst re-doxing the rape victim! The Times has not denied the allegation that Jeong knowingly doxed a rape victim in the belief that, as a result of the doxing, said victim would be harassed. I do find it amusing however that Dean Baquet is being distanced from this hire. It bodes ill for Ms Jeong’s future.

So far the New York Times have decided to tough out the media criticism. However, de-anonymising a rape victim is another category of wrongdoing. I could see a case for it if there was evidence that the person was believed to be a liar but there seems to be no dispute from Jeong over the person’s veracity.

When the racism allegations broke, Jeong expressed contrition claiming she was only “counter-trolling” “harassers”. “Harassment” has become the go-to definition for Conservative speech amongst the extreme left but can she really argue that it makes her conduct acceptable? Can she really argue that a rape victim is a right-winger, “harasser”. If Jeong is truly contrite for her past conduct why is the blog post still up at the time of writing?

If you disagree with Jeong’s appointment, below are the public contact email addresses for the editor of the New York Times, management and and the PR team. Please be polite and reasoned and make no legal threats. Explain that you do not find her apology credible and talk about the other things she has done aside from racism. Here is an example email –

To: dean.baquet@nytimes.com (Executive Editor)
rebecca.blumenstein@nytimes.com (Deputy Managing Editor)
eileen.murphy@nytimes.com (Senior VP Communications)
danielle.rhoades-ha@nytimes.com (VP Communications)

Subject: Complaint About Sarah Jeong

Dear Sirs and Madams,

I am writing to express my dismay at the New York Times appointing Sarah Jeong to its team. Her racist tweets are well known and I do not find her apology credible or appropriate. It has become all to easy for the left to define critics as, “harassers” to excuse bad behaviour.

Even so, since then it has come to light that she doxed a rape victim, opposed revenge pornography criminalisation and that the post complained of is still up to this day on Jeong’s blog.

I read an article about this here and I note that the allegation was put the New York Times and not denied – https://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?p=6007

The only conclusion I can draw from this is that the New York Times endorses Jeong’s views notwithstanding her denials. The NYT is no longer the newspaper of record, but the newspaper of shame. I will never buy a copy again and I will only view the website through ad-blockers and archives.

Yours faithfully,

[signature]