Controversy Surrounding Nicole Hannah-Jones and Assata Shakur

Nicole Hannah-Jones, a New York Times journalist and professor at Howard University, has always sparked debate with her stance on journalism. She openly rejects traditional notions of objectivity, as seen in her “1619 Project,” which argued that slavery played a pivotal role in American independence, despite facing backlash from historians for its inaccuracies. Still, this project earned her a Pulitzer Prize. Recently, she made headlines again in the Times by expressing admiration for 1960s revolutionary Assata Shakur, who was involved in the killing of police officers.

Throughout her career, Hannah-Jones has stirred controversy, from asserting that “all journalism is activism” to propounding theories against law enforcement. Mainstream media, including the Times, have occasionally stepped in to defend her, with figures like the dean of the University of North Carolina trying to minimize public dissension over her views.

Her recent tribute to Shakur echoes a familiar pattern of prioritizing narrative over factual accuracy. Shakur, born Joan Deborah Byron, was affiliated with both the Black Panther Party and the Black Liberation Army. In 1977, she shot and killed New Jersey state trooper Werner Förster, a Vietnam veteran, before escaping to Cuba, where she passed away earlier this year. Over time, she was listed as a domestic terrorist and was put on the Obama administration’s Most Wanted list in 2013.

If you read Hannah-Jones’ columns in the Times, you might miss much of this context. She seems to suggest that Shakur’s conviction stemmed from an “all-white” jury, while glossing over Shakur’s extensive history of violence, including a drug-related shooting and being investigated for other serious crimes. Moreover, Shakur once framed her actions as a form of racial reparation, dismissing bank robbery as part of her struggle.

Her involvement in violent encounters, including a grenade attack on police and various armed robberies, paints a complex picture. A gunfight resulting from her actions led to Förster’s death, and while her trial included serious charges, she ultimately fled after being convicted of murder.

Yet, Hannah-Jones and the Times continue to elevate Shakur’s story. They even liken Shakur’s network to a modern-day Underground Railroad, lamenting the “shocking cost” of her freedom, with little regard for the victims she left behind, including Förster’s family.

In her recent commentary, Hannah-Jones has expressed strong concerns over public memorials like the one for Charlie Kirk, labeling them as “dangerous.” She has also criticized writers discussing issues like shoplifting, framing it as justifying oppressive state actions, which feels a bit, well, contradictory.

The New York Times seems to be fully invested in Hannah-Jones’ narrative. This is the same publication that previously rejected a piece by Senator Tom Cotton regarding National Guard intervention but has published views from figures supporting controversial actions. Editorial decisions at the Times have often led to the removal of those who challenge established narratives.

Ultimately, Hannah-Jones concludes with a striking statement about Shakur, implying she “died free,” a sentiment that feels quite detached from the reality of her criminal past. It’s unsettling to remember that she was a convicted murderer who passed away under a repressive regime, yet this is framed in a way that seeks to glorify her legacy. Meanwhile, the names of actual victims, like Förster, seem to be conveniently overlooked.