Why did you gesture at conspiricism instead of dealing with the substance of the article? Nowhere in that tweet did I make it mutually exclusive, I am giving priority to the problem that adds up to millions of dollars a year in theft from ppl, over a corp insured against theft.
-
-
Replying to @GirlfrendsHaver @adamjohnsonNYC and
I didn’t gesture at conspiricism. It’s about his reputation and the reputation of the chron. That’s where critical reading and reading comp are impt. And retail theft is costing millions of dollars in losses in SF and it’s not as simple as corps being insured against the theft
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @melG679 @GirlfrendsHaver and
The dollar amt is actually the point. The fact that he was paid pennies and then admitted he is an ideologue only shows that he’s a blind partisan advocate (that’s the definition of ideologue) who doesn’t care about his reputation at all bc his POV is dogmatic
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @melG679 @adamjohnsonNYC and
If you don't think the people/sources pushing the narrative that this is shuttering stores that Target & Walgreens announced they'd be closing months ago are also ideologues, you're mistaken. That's an awfully convenient excuse not to deal with the substance of the article, tho.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GirlfrendsHaver @adamjohnsonNYC and
What I didn’t realize and now do is that Johnson is going to have the same opinion regardless of the facts, the data or the evidence. His opinion is worth the pennies he was paid. And you’re right, he doesn’t care about his reputation. At all.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @melG679 @adamjohnsonNYC and
You haven't given a single reason why his reputation is bad in the 1st place. The fact that you're spending all of this time focusing on his reputation instead of the substance of the article only underscores that you're an ideologue yourself- at least Johnson is honest about it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GirlfrendsHaver @adamjohnsonNYC and
I actually did speak about the substance. I said his opinion on the retail thefts in SF and the coverage of them was WRONG. I also he wasn’t comparing apples to apples. What he is doing is distracting from one issue by comparing it to a completely different issue.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @melG679 @adamjohnsonNYC and
What opinion did he venture about the thefts? That the media treats them differently? That's backed up by the data provided. Do you have data that contradicts it? Please, show me. He's comparing coverage of theft to coverage of theft, in what way is that not apples to apples lol?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GirlfrendsHaver @adamjohnsonNYC and
The coverage is based on a viral video. Is there a video of someone committing wage theft? Want to link the video? They’re two different crimes. They’re two different PC sections. They’d be handled by different divisions of the DAs office.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @melG679 @GirlfrendsHaver and
The evidence needed for one is completely different than the evidence needed for the other.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I'm talking about evidence disproving that the coverage was literally 300:1, not the evidence of the crimes themselves. You said "his opinion on the coverage was wrong", so I'm asking you to prove that the analysis of the coverage was wrong. You made the claim, back it up.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.