Indeed. I don't think Norton is a racist/homephobe, I do think she made poor choices with her social media presence for her career. And while I don't think she should lose her job because of five year old tweets that aren't the greatest, I understand where NYTimes would be at: Their first and foremost responsibility is to their brand and reputation.

>Their first and foremost responsibility is to their brand and reputation

Right. People with no skin in the game often want companies to do the right/heroic/etc. thing. Even leaving aside what the appropriate action in this particular case is, the reality is that when there's a mob or the likelihood of one that wants your head, your employer is probably going to think about it for about 10 seconds and then toss you off the deck. "It's just business" as Bill Belichick would put it. We can all think of plenty other examples over the past few years.

The NYT shows an ever more feeble understanding of brand and reputation in this age - Quinn's writing and public commentary really shouldn't come as a surprise to them, any more than going to a talk by Brenda Laurel and having her call out questions with 'Yo' and shoot down bad questions with 'That's a stupid * question' - I don't always agree with her, but I have always seen her as authentic (both of those fine women, actually)

I wasn't familiar with her before this. But it certainly seems as if they didn't do their homework before hiring someone potentially controversial into a rather visible role (given that they apparently didn't want someone who could be controversial).

Yeah, if what Quinn says comes as any great surprise to you, well, that's just sad. Pity too, she can be funny as hell - and I'd have probably signed up for NYT instead of just going in anon