When nearly 3,000 pages of leaked Telegram messages from Young Republican leaders surfaced, the revelations were shocking: racist slurs, antisemitic praise for Hitler, misogynistic rape jokes, and violent fantasies about political opponents. Yet the way the mainstream press covered these leaks raises troubling questions. While outlets acknowledged the presence of racist language, they often softened the most egregious details, choosing euphemism over precision. Reports highlighted terms like “monkeys” or “watermelon people,” but rarely confronted the repeated use of the n‑word in its variations — “nigguh,” “n***a,” and others — that appeared throughout the chats. Similarly, coverage noted that participants “praised Republicans who support slavery,” but declined to specify who was being referenced, leaving the most damning implications vague.
By avoiding explicit acknowledgment of the most offensive language and failing to contextualize the “slavery praise,” the press blunted the public’s understanding of the extremism within these political circles. The result is a sanitized narrative that obscures the gravity of what was uncovered. This is what allows J.D. Vance and others to dismiss the leaked messages as “jokes” or in “bad taste.” By erasing “nigguh” from the reporting, it’s easier to dismiss the racism.
William Spivey
The leaked chats, first reported by Politico and amplified by outlets like MSN, USA Today, and The Root, involved state‑level Young Republican leaders across the country. Participants included vice chairs, communications directors, and rising figures within the GOP’s youth wing. The content was staggering:
- Over 250 racial slurs targeting Black, Latino, and Asian people.
- Praise for Adolf Hitler and jokes about gas chambers.
- Rape jokes and fantasies about sexual violence.
- Ableist and homophobic insults.
Among these, the anti‑Black rhetoric was particularly pervasive. Yet when the story reached mainstream outlets, the reporting often stopped short of naming the ugliest words directly. By foregrounding these, the reporting created a sense of recognition without fully confronting the rawness of the chats.
According to MSN’s reporting, William Hendrix, vice chair of the Kansas Young Republicans, used forms like “nigguh” and “n***a” more than a dozen times. Yet most outlets did not highlight this fact in their headlines or summaries. Instead, they opted for generalized phrases like “racial epithets” or “racist language.”
This choice matters. The n‑word is not just another slur; it is the most charged racial epithet in American history, tied directly to slavery, lynching, and systemic oppression. Its repeated use by political operatives in 2025 is not a footnote — it is the story. By minimizing it, the media dulled the impact of the revelations.
Another example of minimization lies in the reporting on participants who “praised Republicans who support slavery.” This phrase appeared in multiple outlets, but without elaboration. Who were these Republicans? Were they referencing historical figures, contemporary politicians, or both? The lack of specificity left the statement hanging, stripped of context.
The effect was twofold:
- It shielded the individuals in the chats from accountability by not exposing the exact content of their remarks.
- It protected the broader Republican Party from scrutiny by avoiding the implication that current members were being linked to slavery in a celebratory way.
William Spivey
By not naming names, the media allowed the most explosive element of the leaks to dissipate into abstraction. Readers were left with the impression of vague “slavery praise,” rather than a clear understanding of how these young leaders were weaponizing history to glorify racial subjugation.
Why did mainstream outlets choose this path? Several explanations are possible:
- Editorial Standards: Many newsrooms have policies against printing slurs in full, especially the n‑word. While these policies are designed to avoid gratuitous harm, they can also sanitize stories where the slur itself is central to the truth.
- Fear of Backlash: Naming the n‑word repeatedly in coverage risks alienating readers or drawing criticism for sensationalism. Editors may have erred on the side of caution.
- Political Sensitivity: Explicitly connecting the GOP’s youth wing to slavery praise and repeated n‑word use could be seen as too politically explosive, especially in a polarized media environment.
- Narrative Framing: By focusing on “monkeys” and “watermelon people,” outlets could present racism in a way that was offensive but not overwhelming — a digestible scandal rather than a full‑blown crisis.
- Another reason could be that members of the media are protecting those with whom they share beliefs.
This is not the first time the media has softened racist language. During the Civil Rights era, newspapers often referred to lynchings as “racial disturbances” or “mob violence,” avoiding the explicit horror of what occurred. In more recent years, coverage of police killings has sometimes used passive voice — “a man died during an encounter with police” — rather than naming the violence directly.
The Young Republican leaks fit into this pattern. By avoiding the n‑word and leaving “slavery praise” vague, the press continued a tradition of muting the sharpest edges of racism to make stories more palatable to a broad audience.
The Broader Implications
The minimization of the Young Republican leaks is not just about one story. It reflects a broader challenge in American journalism: how to cover racism in a way that is both accurate and responsible. Too often, the press defaults to euphemism, abstraction, or “both‑sides” framing. The result is a public discourse that underestimates the persistence and severity of racism in political life.
In this case, the stakes are high. The Young Republicans are not fringe actors; they are the pipeline for future GOP leadership. If their private chats are filled with n‑word slurs, slavery praise, and Hitler admiration, that is not just a scandal — it is a warning about the trajectory of American politics. Minimizing that reality does a disservice to democracy itself.
This minimization is not a trivial matter. It shapes public understanding, reduces accountability, and risks normalizing extremism. If journalism is to serve the public interest, it must confront racism directly. The Young Republican leaks were not just offensive chatter; they were a window into the ideological rot within a rising generation of political leaders. To tell that story honestly requires naming the ugliness for what it is — in full, unvarnished detail.
This post originally appeared on Medium and is edited and republished with author's permission. Read more of William Spivey's work on Medium. And if you dig his words, buy the man a coffee.