The New York Times on Friday joined The Associated Press and other news organizations in branding the alt-right as a movement with clear racist motives.
In a memo to newsroom staffers, New York Times Standards Editor Phil Corbett ruled that the alt-right is a “racist, far-right fringe movement” that should be described in those terms when it appears in an article:
Let’s avoid using ‘alt-right’ in isolation, without an explanation (which means it will rarely be appropriate in headlines). We don’t need to adopt one-size-fits-all boilerplate, but any description can touch on some key elements, based on our own reporting about the ‘alt-right’:
It’s a racist, far-right fringe movement that embraces an ideology of white nationalism and is anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic and anti-feminist. It is highly decentralized but has a wide online presence. Followers rail against multiculturalism and what they see as ‘political correctness.’
The term “alt-right” has come into vogue with the rise of right-wing populism associated with Breitbart, a hyperpartisan news site. Many of the movement’s adherents supported Donald Trump, whose campaign CEO, Steven Bannon, was the chairman of Breitbart.
Many news organizations, including The New York Times, The Associated Press and NPR, have grappled with the correct usage of the term in recent weeks.
Here’s Corbett’s entire memo:
Colleagues,
A number of people inside and outside the newsroom have asked about the term ‘alt-right.’ Some have argued that the phrase should not be used at all; they see it as a euphemism that disguises the movement’s racism.
After discussing the issue with several knowledgeable reporters and editors, I don’t think banning the term is the best approach. Readers are hearing and seeing ‘alt-right’ elsewhere — it’s used both by adherents and by experts who study and track these groups. But many readers have only the vaguest notion of what it means. Our job is to make sure readers understand the term so that it doesn’t function as a euphemism.
Let’s avoid using ‘alt-right’ in isolation, without an explanation (which means it will rarely be appropriate in headlines). We don’t need to adopt one-size-fits-all boilerplate, but any description can touch on some key elements, based on our own reporting about the ‘alt-right’:
It’s a racist, far-right fringe movement that embraces an ideology of white nationalism and is anti-immigrant, anti-Semitic and anti-feminist. It is highly decentralized but has a wide online presence. Followers rail against multiculturalism and what they see as ‘political correctness.’
So, for example, we might describe someone as ‘a leader of the so-called alt-right, a far-right fringe movement that embraces white nationalism and a range of racist and anti-immigrant positions.’
We can also make it clear that this is the term adopted by the movement itself — by putting it in quotes on first reference, or with a phrase like ‘so-called alt-right’ or ‘who describe themselves as ‘alt-right.’ As always, it’s best to be specific and provide details in describing the views of individuals and groups, rather than relying solely on shorthand labels.
We’ll be doing much more reporting on this topic, so I’m confident our readers will get a full, unvarnished picture.
Let me know if you have more questions.
