I'm not sure how many different ways it could be interpreted so I will grope for a clearer explanation, but I may not be recognizing the ambiguity you did. Since Sarah Jeong is a "lead writer on technology" according to her wiki page, I suppose her tweets don't have much bearing on her fitness to do her job. Still, the Times is viewed by many as having a left-leaning bias, and hiring her doesn't serve to dispel that notion very much. Mind, their reputed lean is about the same direction as for me, so I don't object overly. You can look at any given employee anywhere, and guess (for amusement, and usually wrongly, but still with some cause) what sorts of embarrassing revelation might come out about past indiscretions. Throwing an object at the police at a political rally, foolish romantic relationships, dumb tweets, all that. My guess, only a guess, is that if you walked through the Times offices, rarely would you look at an employee and guess "white-supremicist tweets" as a plausible skeleton in the closet. The Times isn't alone in the profile of its editorial contributors, of course. Did I address anything you were wondering about?