Much of social media –- as well as some private citizens and mainstream media –whipped themselves into a frenzied tizzy over the article written by New York Times reporter Richard Fausset called “A Voice of Hatred in America’s Heartland.”
Fausset profiled Tony Hovater, a young millennial family man and self-avowed Nazi who resides in New Carlise, Ohio. Many people who read the piece (including me), were surprised, shocked and in many cases, outraged by what appeared to be a sympathetic or at the very least, ambivalent profile of Hovater and his ardent, unabashed White supremacist viewpoints. Reaction was swift across the political and religious spectrum.
Numerous New York Times readers lambasted Fausset and went to town, criticizing the Times editorial staff for publishing such an uncritical assessment of a person who harbors racial and religious hatred (despite his denials) and who strongly advocates for a nation where people are segregated based on racial pigmentation.
To be sure, the “Tony Horvath, is just a regular family man, who loves video games , certain classic television shows, certain food, etc…” was very troubling and arguably disingenuous. In the fact that such an article whether intentionally or not, inadvertently normalizes White supremacy.
For its part, the paper made the case that the editors believed Mr. Fausett’s article had fallen short of NYT standards and Fausset himself conceded as much.
Hoopla and dissent aside—and there were indeed legitimate criticisms of the entire episode—the more interesting question we should be asking ourselves is Fausett’s attitude and coverage of his subject an aberration or par for the course as it relates to mainstream attitudes about White supremacists ? To be sure, if interviewed about the question, the average person would vehemently deny (at least in public or in mixed company) the fact that they harbor racial or religious hatred toward others who are different from them.
Indeed, as a society we have evolved to a level where views that would have been seen as socially acceptable as late as the 1950s or even early to mid-1960s are no longer embraced (at least publicly, though we are seeing some changes on this front) by the majority of people and are seen as taboo. Thus, the level of public scorn heaped upon Fausset and his colleagues at the Times was not all that surprising.
