reasons 1-2 are true and irrelevant - obviously @amymek was a legitimate subject of journalistic inquiry, the question relates to her husband's employer
-
Show this thread
-
reason 3 is similarly true and irrelevant - reaching out to associates is fine, but it's on ya'll to do so in a way that minimizes collateral damage. i.e. - if you must reach out to the employer, do so in a way that makes clear that you won't bring them up in the story
3 replies 2 retweets 12 likesShow this thread -
reason 4 is insufficient - journalistic relevance is not a bare threshold that justifies any and all journalism absent consideration of collateral damage to civilians/family members
8 replies 3 retweets 18 likesShow this thread -
reason 5 is just a complete failure to take ownership of the predictable consequences of one's actions the entire internet is dunking on this huffpo journalist precisely because of that failure
9 replies 2 retweets 25 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @willchamberlain
Reasons 1-2 are relevant because it's necessary to establish that she's a public figure, which many are denying. When that's established, then contacting associates (such as husband/husband's employer) becomes legitimate.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mtracey @willchamberlain
The onus is not on journalists to "minimize collateral damage" in the manner you claim. If the associate's employment status is deemed relevant to the story -- which it was here -- then giving that assurance ("I won't bring them up") would be journalistically invalid
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mtracey
i simply don't understand this, as a matter of ethics you simply do not weigh consequences? at all? they have zero relevance to the newsgathering process and whether or not to publish?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @willchamberlain @mtracey
this reads like a crazy decision rule whereby once a threshold of "relevance" is reached, no further consideration of consequences is required and the journalist can go forward
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @willchamberlain
Consequences should always be weighed. If you're contending that the reporter ought to have concealed the husband's identity despite the clear relevance because of "consequences" over which he had no control then you have a strange calculus
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mtracey
i'm saying he either should have 1) not contacted the husband's employer OR 2) done so overtly on background and that whatever trivial journalistic relevance the husband's employer had to the story was outweighed by the collateral damage of pursuing it on record
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
If he's essentially bankrolling this person's Muslim-outing efforts then I think his work with Muslims is more than trivially relevant. Clearly WWE felt that it was more than trivial.
-
-
Replying to @mtracey @willchamberlain
Keep digging that hole Michael. Pretty soon it will turn into a grave.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.