You said that the NYT "helped expel a girl from college". The article did no such thing, euphemism aside, for the simple reason that time travel is impossible. I am begging you to read the article or at least the date of publication because it is clear you haven't.

>Confused why you think the article was "news" worth printing

The article is about a girl having her life upended by an internet mob with interviews with the principal players. (Again, to be abundantly clear, this article is post hoc.) Is that not newsworthy? You certainly think the event is worth bringing up months later which points to it being at least a little noteworthy.

> or sympathetic

They quote the girl, painting her as having just made an innocent mistake. "At the time, I didn’t understand the severity of the word, or the history and context behind it because I was so young". “It honestly disgusts me that those words would come out of my mouth”. Hell the main thrust of the article is a racial revenge narrative where she's the arbitrary victim of a mixed-race kid living in a racist town trying to settle the score with whatever he can.

Sounds like you are getting angry about something that didn’t happen. The NYT simply reported on something that happened and did a good job framing her as a human- not a horribly racist monster or whatever.

Would you prefer the press just didn’t inform you of such going’s on?

The very article you linked to contradicts your telling of the events here. She voluntarily withdrew from her high school and the college rescinded her acceptance months before the article was published.