Joan Walsh on Joy Reid

[Fla Dem]

https://twitter.com/joanwalsh

@joanwalsh
18h18 hours ago

1) So: Many people know I am close friends with @JoyAnnReid. Few of you know I was the first person to publish her, roughly 18 years ago. We didn't meet for at least a dozen years.

3:38 PM - 25 Apr 2018 from Manhattan, NY

254 replies 2,246 retweets 6,771 likes

@joanwalsh
18h18 hours ago

2) At Salon, I kept track of her work and read her blog, "The Reid Report," after that. In 2008, when we started our blogging platform "Open Salon," we asked our favorite contributors who had blogs to cross post with us. Joy did so and was immediately a huge hit.

@joanwalsh
18h18 hours ago

3) Our editors monitored "The Reid Report" to see if she posted anything we wanted; sometimes we'd nudge her to cross-post, and she did.

@joanwalsh
18h18 hours ago

4) Obviously, none of us ever saw the kinds of homophobic posts she's now accused of. If we had, we'd have stopped publishing her.

@joanwalsh
18h18 hours ago

5) Interestingly, no one has come forward and said that they read any of this garbage in real time: "Oh hey, that Joy Reid was a real nightmare, can't believe she got published."

@joanwalsh
18h18 hours ago

6) Also, to my knowledge, the offensive posts had no comments on them, while the posts she acknowledges had some lively comments debates.

@joanwalsh
18h18 hours ago

7) Now, can I claim I read every word she posted? Of course not. But I did read it enough to know that she did not regularly reflect the attitudes she's accused of here.

@joanwalsh
18h18 hours ago

8) Maybe most important, I write this to say: I've followed Joy's writing for @17 years. She did not appear out of nowhere, to me, and wind up with a television show. Some of her critics imply that. Which only shows their own isolation

@joanwalsh
18h18 hours ago

9) Because let's be honest, too often a great black writer seems to appear out of nowhere. Sometimes that makes them vulnerable to criticism; sometimes it makes them just magical. Those of us who followed the politics of race, class and gender more than a decade ago know Joy Reid

@joanwalsh
18h18 hours ago

10) Again, I cannot say with certainty none of these posts she's disavowed appeared on her blog way back when. I can just say: I've been reading her for 17 years. And I don't believe they did. Thanks for reading.

[marble falls]

1. Everything thing that's published regarding Joy's alleged "anti-LBGT" writings showed me...

someone who was trying to learn more about LGBT issues. There were no anti-LGBT statements.

What is happening to Joy seems a lot like the whack job that was done to Al Franken. When we dig down deep enough we'll find someone like Roger Stone at the bottom of it.

We need more people who do what Joy Reed really is doing everyday: tell us the truth and meaning of what the RW is doing to us every single waking hour of single day to us.

[ananda]

18. Agree. Let's stop Frankening our good ones!

nt

[late]

2. Remeber the baseless attacks on Obama?

This is Jim Crow trying to come home.

[marble falls]

3. Exactly right. They will strip us of out truthtellers anyway they can. I do not put Putin's....

methods of dealing with journalists and reporters past cheetolini and his basket of deplorables.

[Spider Jerusalem]

4. Yeah, that doesn't fly

She was very obviously making those sorts of posts, at the time; here's one quoted on DU in 2007: https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x48020

[TheSmarterDog]

5. All the evidence points to her not writing these posts.

None of her followers remember them, none of her editors remember them, they don't match her expressed views at the time, they have no replies, she was on the air working when they were supposedly posted, they're not written in the same style as she used, they used different wording, etc etc etc.

For the RW narrative you're pushing to be true, literally *ALL* of the people she's dealt with during that time would have had to have collective amnesia about these specific unusual, offensive & out of character posts & no others.

This whole thing is a set up.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=10&v=ioBhGmfYDKo

[Spider Jerusalem]

7. All of the evidence, in fact, points to her actually writing them and now lying about it

because she already apologised for homophobic commentary about Charlie Crist, from over a decade ago. Those comments were not markedly dissimilar in tone or content from these. These posts are contemporarily archived, with timestamps dated to around the time they were originally posted. I just linked one of them that was posted on DU not long after it was written, in 2007. You have to be wilfilly blind to argue that there's "no evidence".

[TheSmarterDog]

8. And you have to be willfully blind not to recognize

That your narrative is being pushed hard by the antiDem left & the RW fascists. Why do you refuse to address that?

[Spider Jerusalem]

25. Sorry facts make you uncomfortable, I guess?

I don't really see any inherent contradiction in the idea that Joy Reid can be homophobic and also anti-Trump. The former fact is inconvenient and makes her something of a liability as a supposedly "progressive" TV personality. This isn't the first time she's had trouble with comments like this; she has something of a history.

[TheSmarterDog]

28. I see your sole purpose here is to push the RW narrative.

[Spider Jerusalem]

30. Nope, I'm more interested in the truth

I don't give a flying fuck about Joy Reid, one way or another. I find her history of homophobia and transphobia kind of gross and repellent, but beyond that I don't much care. She could've apologised, and then this would've been over; she made a bizarre and frankly unbelievable claim about being "hacked", though. Which leaves her without much credibility, as far as I'm concerned.

[TheSmarterDog]

34. No, if you were more interested in the truth you'd be looking at ALL the evidence.

Not just what Breitbart is dangling in front of your nose. They have no credibility at all and - unlike Joy Reid - never have. But you're eating up every scrap of shit they're dishing out.

I wonder why that is?

[Spider Jerusalem]

37. I looked at the posts on the Internet Archive

and the only "news" sources I've looked at related to this have been the Atlantic, NYMag and Slate.

[TheSmarterDog]

38. And that's not all the evidence.

That's not even all the electronic evidence.

You're too busy pushing your chosen agenda to be impartial.

[Spider Jerusalem]

40. Posts archived within three days of being posted, in 2007...

are evidence that those posts were on that blog then, and that any presumed "hack" had to have happened over a decade ago. (Which is not the claim that has been made, I don't think.) And it would also mean that someone who maintained an active blog never noticed posts that she didn't write on her dashboard (which is also not credible).

[TheSmarterDog]

42. Yeah, we get it. You took Breitbart's bait.

Now you got to swim with it.

[leftofcool]

12. The real question is who gives a flying fuck what she may or may not have said 10 years ago?

Oh wait, Russians, Assange, Greenwald, Jill Stein, Nina Turner and the right wing crowd. And we all know of course that only what Democratic women said 10-20 years ago is important right? And the word on the street is that Rachel Maddow is next in line for a take down by these people. You okay with that too?

[Fla Dem]

19. Truth. It's what she does now that matters.

Bet we'd all like to change a few things we did 10,15, 20 years ago.

[leftofcool]

26. No shit!

[DanTex]

22. I agree that there's no doubt that those posts appeared on her blog in 2007.

It's still plausible that they appeared there by some other mechanism other than Joy Reid writing them. I find it very unlikely, but it's not impossible.

However, I disagree that the comments "were not markedly dissimilar in tone". Going after Charlie Crist in the way she did is, in my opinion, markedly dissimilar to stating that the idea of two men kissing is repulsive.

[Jakes Progress]

23. breittrat loves them some naive democrats.

They got Al. Now they want Joy. Some here are glad to help because - Oh! Look. Shiny!

[TheSmarterDog]

31. They'll keep casting their line as long as they keep reeling them in.

[Jakes Progress]

36. And some are so eager for the bait.

You know. Deep thinkers and all.

[hlthe2b]

9. Some seem so damned determined to destroy her....

I've read each of your posts and it seems to go so far beyond understandable outrage at what is purported that she said at the time and gives absolutely NO benefit of the doubt . Although I know you are a long time DUer, it seems way beyond what I'd expect from the worst Reid detractor from outside this website.

I get it. You feel aggrieved and I'm not saying you are wrong to feel that way, But damn it surely seems you are letting yourself and all of us get manipulated by those who want to take Reid out as a strong progressive voice.

Don't worry, this is my only post to you. I am not going to be one to hound you. You probably will discount it, fine, but under the slight chance you might mull this over in your mind over the next days and weeks, I had to post.

[Spider Jerusalem]

10. I am mostly disgusted by the blatant lies she's telling, because it's very obvious she wasn't hacked

the evidence doesn't support her claims. I'm boggled that anyone can take them seriously in light of that evidence. It looks like the worst sort of partisan blindness. I don't care if she's a "strong progressive voice"; if she's lying about this, then I would like to think we can do better. She's already owned up to saying similar things and apologised for them.

[hlthe2b]

11. I don't know whether it is true or not or she merely has convinced herself. That is NOT the issue

with me. It is what she thinks, what she says, how she acts, and what she DOES now. Not years ago. I have no reason to doubt that.

And yes, I feel strongly we are being manipulated. Been there, seen that and still mourn the impacts. I won't be fooled again.

[Fla Dem]

14. Exactly. She apologized and owned up to them.

So what's the benefit of denying other posts. IF she wrote them, she could simply say she has already effusively apologized and acknowledged how wrong and insensitive her comments were 10+ years ago. She's a smart women. She knows to continually deny something that can be proven can only cause her more harm than good. This whole thing is being driven by an anonymous twitter poster @Jamie_Maz who to the best of my knowledge has not been identified and would appear to have a Joy Reid obsession if you read their twitter feed.

Joy Reid's apology.

DECEMBER 3, 2017 2:23PM PT
Joy Reid Apologizes for Old Homophobic Blog Posts: They Were ‘Insensitive, Tone Deaf and Dumb’
By Erin Nyren @ecnyren Erin Nyren
Staff Editor


More of article.......... http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/joy-reid-apologizes-homophobic-blog-posts-1202629278/


This note is my apology to all who are disappointed by the content of blogs I wrote a decade ago, for which my choice of words and tone have legitimately been criticized.

As a writer, I pride myself on a facility with language — an economy of words or at least some wisdom in the selection. However, that clearly has not always been the case.

In 2007 I was a morning talk radio host and blogger, writing about Florida politics (a blog I maintained until 2011.) Among the frequent subjects of my posts was then-governor Charlie Crist, at the time a conservative Republican, whose positions on issues like gay marriage and adoption by same-sex couples in Florida shared headlines with widely rumored reports that he was hiding his sexual orientation. Those reports were the subject of lots of scrutiny: by LGBTQ bloggers, writers and journalists, conservative blogs, a controversial documentary film called “Outrage,” and even by the comedic writers at South Park. But it was my own attempt at challenging Crist on my blog that has now raised the issue of not just my choice of words, but what was and is in my heart.


Let me be clear: at no time have I intentionally sought to demean or harm the LGBT community, which includes people whom I deeply love. My goal, in my ham-handed way, was to call out potential hypocrisy.

Nonetheless, as someone who is not a member of the LGBT community, I regret the way I addressed the complex issue of the closet and speculation on a person’s sexual orientation with a mocking tone and sarcasm. It was insensitive, tone deaf and dumb. There is no excusing it – not based on the taste-skewing mores of talk radio or the then-blogosphere, and not based on my intentions.

In addition to friends and coworkers and viewers, I deeply apologize to Congressman Crist, who was the target of my thoughtlessness. My critique of anti-LGBT positions he once held but has since abandoned was legitimate in my view. My means of critiquing were not.

In the years since I went from blogger to opinion journalist, I have also learned, through brilliant friends and allies in the LGBT activist community, how to better frame my critiques of those who challenge people’s right to love who they want, marry them, and walk in the world as fully free people.

Re-reading those old blog posts, I am disappointed in myself. I apologize to those who also are disappointed in me. Life can be humbling. It often is. But I hope that you know where my heart is, and that I will always strive to use my words for good. I know better and I will do better.

[Spider Jerusalem]

15. She apologised for other ones, some she claims were "hacked"

even though those claims are obviously not true.

[Fla Dem]

17. Geez, that was the whole point of my post.

Why would she apologize for some and then claim others were fake? Makes no sense. Her apology was contrite enough to include all her writings of 10 years ago. Does she have to apologize for each and every comment she ever made?

"Re-reading those old blog posts, I am disappointed in myself. I apologize to those who also are disappointed in me. Life can be humbling. It often is. But I hope that you know where my heart is, and that I will always strive to use my words for good. I know better and I will do better."

So if in fact she did write other insensitive and tone deaf comments, why lie? She only digs a deeper hole. Easier to just reiterate her apology and move on.

She apologised for other ones, some she claims were "hacked"even though those claims are obviously not true.

How do you know they are "obviously not true"? Do you have some inside contact?

[Jakes Progress]

24. You keep using that word "obviously". I

do not think it means what you think it means.

So naive. So willing. So gullible. So much the favorite target of the rw and russian efforts.

[Spider Jerusalem]

27. Yeah, it means exactly what I think it means

https://web.archive.org/web/20070218173925/https://blog.reidreport.com/2007/02/tim-hardaway-is-homophobe-and-so-are.html

again, check the archive date (it's right there; that page on archive.org appears as it did on 18 February 2007, 3 days after the original posting date).

See also this, from 2007, which is similar in tone and content re "gay kissing is gross": https://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x48020

So yeah, I think her claims that this is the result of a "hack" are obviously not true.

[Jakes Progress]

35. There is that word in your last sentence.

You "think". That obviates obvious.

[stonecutter357]

29. lol you fell for it .

[progressoid]

39. There's a simple explanation for this...

[Miigwech]

6. Love Joy Reed

I was around at the beginning of the Gay Rights marches. One march in NYC, at the very end was a group (maybe 5 guys) of men marching behind the banner MAMBLA. They were not permitted in the parade but they tacked on at the end. We booed them. These guys wanted to hitch their movement to Gay Rights but, everyone rejected them. They guys are pedophiles that have a preference for boys .... they are not part of the Gay Rights groups, period. I think this is where the confusion comes in with Joy and the post. Joy is not the problem.

[ollie10]

13. As I reflect on this...

1) we simply don't know all the facts yet

2) we don't know if her blog was hacked yet

3) One thing we do know.....if we divide as a party(such as blacks vs gays) this is the goal of the Republicans and especially the Russian trolls.

4) I think it is clear somebody has dug this stuff up, and I have my suspicions who...well I think it is obvious.

5) We don't need to get into a divisive war among ourselves here, regardless of what we find out. That is what our enemies are counting on.

[BobTheSubgenius]

16. Some solid support right there!

I think a lot of the decision-making on whether to believe what I believe are lies being told about her comes down to Joy Reid's credibility.

Has she earned it, or not?

[Gothmog]

20. From Prof. Tribe

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[question everything]

21. I don't understand. Is this the way Twitter works: a sequence of one comment

after the other? Like.... Trump?

Why not post one detailed commentary on a more accommodating media?

[Hekate]

33. Check Salon itself. As for Twitter, while I despise it & don't use it, it is used by millions...

...if not billions of people.

[Hekate]

32. Kicking for Joy and Joan

[dajoki]

41. I love Joy...

and will continue watching her.

[Gothmog]

43. For this thread

I was very sad to see Joan Walsh leave MSNBC. I have been following Joan Walsh for a very long time and I have a great deal of confidence in her judgment. Joan Walsh has been following Joy Reid for a long time and has published Joy Reid. Based on her long experience with Joy Reid, Joan Walsh does not believe the reports on Reid's alleged homophobic remarks

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Walsh is honest to admit that she has not read everything that Joy Reid has posted but she does have a good feel for who Joy Reid is.

[Fla Dem]

44. I agree with everything you said about Joan Walsh.

I posted all of her tweets in the OP.

[Azathoth]

45. The posts in question come from circa 2006, which means Joan must have "missed" them

like she "missed" the stuff about Charlie Crist.