https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/1619-project-new-york-times-wilentz/605152/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/1619-proje... W

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/1619-project-new-york-times-wilentz/605152/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/1619-proje... While this list contains everything that is positive and great about journalism, it also embraces what makes journalism reviled. The Pulitzer award going to the 1619 project despite it's mistruths further erodes people's willingness to trust the media to do their basic job - to tell the truth. The NYT article embraces the conceit from the media that they are they experts - they need not listen to historians, but instead journalists can be the sole arbiter of truth. The articles "overarching contention that slavery and racism are the foundations of American history" is simply a story that the journalist wants to tell. The journalist ignored the truth in order to tell that story risks kicking out the legs to a true evaluation of America's (and more generally the west's) troubled history with race. To some, the 1619 project becomes incontrovertible truth, backed by the Pulitzer and the NYT, and anyone who disagrees with it are racist. To others the easily disproved assertions discredit not only this article, but all well-founded criticisms of race in America. This is how we get two Americas. Every man is entitled to their opinion, but not their own set of facts. If we ignore facts in order to feed our biases, we will never be able to talk about the truly hard issues that we have to master.