The woke jackboots bend the knuckles of another newspaper backwards

The triggered-snowflake phenomenon claims another one:

This story looks suspiciously similar to what happened at the New York Times after they decided to run that op-ed from Tom Cotton. Only this time, the tale is playing out a bit to the south in the City of Brotherly Love. It was revealed this weekend that the Pulitzer Prize-winning Executive Editor at the Philadelphia Inquirer was resigningover yet another “mistake” in the form of the decision to run an offensive article by a similarly prize-winning reporter. Stan Wischnowski was thanked for his many years of service to the paper, but his resignation in the wake of this tragic mistake was accepted nonetheless. (Inquirer.com)

SEE ALSO: Scientist: We could see up to 1,100 additional daily coronavirus deaths from these protests if they’re large enough

Stan Wischnowski, the top editor of The Philadelphia Inquirer, has announced his resignation, days after discontent among the newspaper’s staff erupted over a headline on a column about the impact of the civil unrest following the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis.

Wischnowski, 58, led the paper over two turbulent periods in recent years, driving it; its sister paper, the Daily News; and its website, Inquirer.com, to reshape themselves as the digital age transformed the news business.

Wischnowski will be out the door on Friday and the search is on for a replacement “who embodies our values, embraces our shared strategy, and understands the diversity of the communities we serve.” Ouch. He must have pulled a really bonehead maneuver here, eh? I suppose we’d better find out what he did that was so bad.

As it happens, Wischnowski approved the publication of an article about the recent riots written by Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Inga Saffron. The article, originally titled “Buildings Matter Too,” sent shockwaves through the newsroom. (For the record, Saffron is the newspaper’s architecture critic.) More than 40 reporters decided to “call in sick and tired” over the decision and it led Jenice Armstrong, a female, African-American reporter, to pen a scathing rebuttal. In it, she vented about how she is paid less than most of her colleagues and how Black reporters and editors are underrepresented at the paper.

So what was so horrible about Saffron’s article? She was pointing out that the destruction of businesses in the city negatively impacts communities of color more than anyone else and such actions are counterproductive to the cause. Really controversial stuff, eh? Or maybe it was just the title. The paper later edited it to read, “Damaging buildings disproportionately hurt the people protesters are trying to uplift.” But the more easily offended took the original title as some sort of attack on “Black Lives Matter,” despite the fact that the contents of the article said pretty much exactly what the new title conveyed.  

When this garbage started on college campuses in the previous decade, did anybody think it was going to stay there?

It's one thing to prevent a Ben Shapiro or a Heather MacDonald from speaking in an auditorium. It's quite another to ruin the careers of editors over innocuous decisions

These people mean business.