Why do all these white nationalist cranks keep ending up as supporting evidence for my columns?
By 
The Times has issued a “correction” to the latest iteration of the Bret Stephens Experience and somehow made things worse:
Here is the original column, via @ashleyfeinberg. Stephens writes: “The common answer is that Jews are, or tend to be, smart. When it comes to Ashkenazi Jews, it’s true.”
He then goes onto quote the 2005 column.
That’s an endorsement of the study and its conclusions. pic.twitter.com/VBMTmB3jZM— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) December 29, 2019
The notion that you can premise your article on a “study” by a white supremacist and then just delete references to the study but leave the rest of the column unchanged is pretty ridiculous.— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) December 29, 2019
I have no editors, publish 4x per week, and in hundreds of pieces have never accidentally promoted pseudo-science from a white supremacist.
It’s not very hard.— Judd Legum (@JuddLegum) December 29, 2019
“Sorry I endorsed racist pseudo-science but that’s why pencils have erasers!” Again, I fully believe the rumors that Bennet will take over for Baquet.
…as Brian Beulter observes, in addition to the substantive problems this is just incredibly lazy on the part of someone whose job is to write two short columns a week with the help of a research and editing staff:
Even if Stephens used this tactic to advance inoffensive arguments, it’s still a problem to employ a columnist who seems to routinely source his work by Googling phrases that confirm his biases and then linking to whatever drek pops up.— Brian Beutler (@brianbeutler) December 28, 2019
third result pic.twitter.com/Hofk4NxLqh— Ashley Feinberg (@ashleyfeinberg) December 28, 2019
If you recall, he did the same thing with his infamous “bedbug” column.