zlacker

I think you are too eager to decide that the article is scummy.

For me, those two paragraphs do not say that Tan was antisemetic in any form. It says that

i) some of the same people received an antisemitic hate letters before

ii) those antisemetic letters used the same wording than the ones sent using Tan’s face

The only implication that I see is that they were likely sent by the same person/group. I see this is very clear in the writing as it is. Zero scummyness in it.

And, this connection, in my opinion, very much justifies including the antisemetic letters in the article. It seems a very relevant information.

>>soneca+(OP)
I would argue that Garry's motivation and intent is extremely relevant to this topic of conversation; possibly the most relevant thing. The article omitting this is absolutely scummy, because it fills that omission with connections to antisemetism, and then goes on to speak on how "powerful people need to be held accountable" (absolutely true).

Yes, "for you" and clearly, for me, I did not draw the conclusion that Garry's motivations were antisemetic. That's not the point. Journalists publish articles for an extremely broad audience, and there's a high degree of responsibility and ethics required of the author while publishing; a degree that, to be clear, I do not feel this author met.