So, after reading all this (and boy, I understand it's to provide context, but it is a slog), my general takeaway is that Donald was making good and accurate po

So, after reading all this (and boy, I understand it's to provide context, but it is a slog), my general takeaway is that Donald was making good and accurate points, but perhaps for this audience probably should have considered and measured his words a bit more. I do believe that if you actually understand the situations, there is most definitely no malice or harmful intent in anything he said/did, but I can also see how in the current climate where nuance is irrelevant that things he said and did could be perceived as offensive to people who are hypersensitive to these things. What concerned me more was that, at least based upon this narrative, the collective failure of The Times to perhaps underline from the outset that the issue was spreading within the newsroom and how serious it was, and that the Times provided next to no support for the situation beyond having legal proofread statements and more or less left Donald to hang in the wind. It really seems to me that the Times more or less gave up on Donald from the outset and let things snowball as an excuse to get rid of him to avoid bad PR. And the real kicker is that they still left him up to get a pulitzer for his reporting at their publication while throwing him under the bus. Talk about having your cake and eating it too.