Joy Reid homophobic

1. The controversy that resurfaced — what was found and when

Old posts on Reid’s defunct blog, The Reid Report, and earlier tweets resurfaced beginning in December 2017 and again in April 2018; they included mockery of gay people, speculation about politicians’ sexuality, statements calling male-male kissing “disgusting to straight people,” and passages accusing gay men of preying on younger males — material media outlets described as homophobic ^{[1] [4] [5]}.

2. Reid’s response: apologies, hacking claims, and legal steps

Reid initially apologized for earlier posts in December, calling them “insensitive, tone deaf and dumb,” later saying some newly discovered entries were “fabricated” and attributing them to an external party that accessed and manipulated her archived blog; she and her lawyers contacted Google and the Internet Archive and said the FBI was involved in an inquiry, according to statements provided to press ^{[6] [1] [7]}.

3. Independent checks and journalistic skepticism

News organizations documented skepticism about the hacking claim. The Internet Archive told reporters it had found no evidence to support Reid’s account of manipulation, and journalists reported that cybersecurity experts she hired had not produced proof; outlets thus presented both her account and the lack of corroboration in public records ^{[1] [8]}.

4. Consequences from advocacy groups and the press

LGBT advocacy groups rescinded awards and publicly distanced themselves — for example PFLAG withdrew a Straight for Equality in Media Award — and outlets reported the fallout as reputational harm that persisted even after apologies and legal steps were announced ^{[2] [3]}.

5. How outlets characterized the content and the debate over intent

Major outlets framed the posts as “expressions of disgust” about homosexuality and as advocacy against same-sex marriage in some entries; coverage also highlighted arguments from defenders who said Reid’s critics were applying double standards, while critics said the content revealed genuine past bias ^{[1] [4] [9]}.

6. Timeline tensions and evidentiary limits

Reporting shows a fractured chronology: Reid apologized for some posts in December, then later claimed hacking for additional items; the Internet Archive and journalists said they found no clear proof of hacking, while her legal team said they had alerted platforms — available sources document both moves but do not present an independent technical audit confirming manipulation ^{[1] [7] [6]}.

7. Broader context: legacy blogging, changing norms, and accountability

Coverage placed Reid’s case in the wider pattern of journalists and commentators being held to account for earlier online writing; outlets noted how attitudes and standards toward LGBTQ issues evolved and how archives and social media can resurface past material — reporters offered competing interpretations about whether remorse or explanation mattered more ^{[1] [5]}.

8. What reporting does not settle

Available sources do not present definitive technical proof that the disputed posts were or were not altered by a third party; they also do not include a public, independent forensic report confirming Reid authored every line or proving external fabrication beyond statements from involved parties ^{[1] [8]}.

9. Takeaway for readers assessing the claim “Joy Reid homophobic”

Facts in reporting show homophobic language appeared under her name or in archives tied to her site and that she apologized for earlier material; simultaneous reporting documents unresolved questions about other specific posts and whether they were fabricated, and records of reputational consequences ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Readers should weigh the demonstrable content and the absence of a published forensic verdict when forming judgments.

Limitations: this account is limited to the supplied sources and their reporting; technical forensic details and later developments beyond these articles are not included because they are not present in the provided material ^{[1] [7]}.