August 19, 2019

Conservatives Stage Meltdown Over New York Times’ 1619 Slavery Series

“The whole project is a lie.”

Imago/ZUMA

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

On Sunday, the New York Times launched its much-anticipated 1619 Project, an entire magazine issue dedicated to examining the lasting legacy of slavery on the 400th anniversary of the first arrival of enslaved Africans in America. The reception to the initiative was overwhelmingly positive, with many applauding editor Nikole Hannah-Jones for spearheading a journalistic endeavor that deftly illustrates slavery’s impact on nearly every aspect of the country today.

But as praise poured in, so too did conservative grievances.

The resulting backlash, which managed to be both predictable and stunning, featured sitting senators and some of the right’s most influential commentators. Erick Erickson, a conservative activist and commentator, blasted the Times for including the work of “opinion writers who profit from seeing things through racial lenses.”

Erickson pressed further, in tweets that sparked their own backlash, equating the project’s contributors to President Donald Trump and his efforts to stoke racial fears. That sentiment was echoed in much of the right’s anger over the weekend:

Others sought to discredit the project by portraying it as part of a nefarious plot by the Times to undermine Trump. In many cases, they connected it to a misreading of comments made by Times executive editor Dean Baquet about the paper’s coverage.

But perhaps there was no one more aggrieved than Newt Gingrich, who tweeted three times lashing out at the project before taking his anger to Fox News Monday morning. The segment included accusations that the project was propagating a  “lie” that failed to give due recognition to white Americans who fought against slavery.

Gingrich even appeared to suggest that the project was an effort by the Times to use the issue of race to torpedo Trump’s reelection bid.

The backlash, however, appeared to do little to dim the enthusiasm surrounding the project, as evidenced by the many rushing to get their hands on a physical copy when the issue hit newsstands. 

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

WE CAME UP SHORT.

We just wrapped up a shorter-than-normal, urgent-as-ever fundraising drive and we came up about $45,000 short of our $300,000 goal.

That means we're going to have upwards of $350,000, maybe more, to raise in online donations between now and June 30, when our fiscal year ends and we have to get to break-even. And even though there's zero cushion to miss the mark, we won't be all that in your face about our fundraising again until June.

So we urgently need this specific ask, what you're reading right now, to start bringing in more donations than it ever has. The reality, for these next few months and next few years, is that we have to start finding ways to grow our online supporter base in a big way—and we're optimistic we can keep making real headway by being real with you about this.

Because the bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we hope you might consider pitching in before moving on to whatever it is you're about to do next. We really need to see if we'll be able to raise more with this real estate on a daily basis than we have been, so we're hoping to see a promising start.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate