One writer wrote the 1619 project, which was publicly called out for lying about American history to advance a racially divisive narrative in times of racial se

One writer wrote the 1619 project, which was publicly called out for lying about American history to advance a racially divisive narrative in times of racial sensitivity. They had to issue corrections, and followed up recently with a round of unacknowledged stealth edits. That was fine. These folks didn't criticize the writer whose agenda piece embarrassed the paper. But they criticize a writer for criticizing that article? How can a guild that makes this kind of bizarre decisions, which are clearly agenda-drive and divorced from any commitment to objective truth, be trusted with the newspaper of record?