Show me where the editor wrote that, Bruce.
-
-
I read this as entirely consistent with what the OP said. How is it not? The journalist was writing a piece to attack the subject (likely not because it’s newsworthy but because it gets clicks) and it backfired.pic.twitter.com/aj2vS8XfnL
1 reply 1 retweet 15 likes -
My god - when a local person makes national news, local reporters write a profile. They are not looking to "attack the subject," they are looking to explain to their readers who the suddenly famous person in their midst is. And NOTHING IN THERE SAYS WHAT YOU SAY IT DOES.
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
They are not looking to explain — they are looking to get clicks - and controversy and racism gets clicks. It seems pretty obvious. Is this article for example designed to inform people? Or is it using a trending topic with some frosting on top to drive a few more ad dollars?pic.twitter.com/3SgIkibfze
2 replies 1 retweet 18 likes -
Changing the subject ad making generic statements after everything you have said up to this point has been lies, hyperbole and just straight bullshit. Typical.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
The subject is the OP - that your profession has no credibility and times are changing. My claim was that the journalist was going to attack the subject & it backfired — that’s not a lie — it’s backed up by the editors own words which I posted above. You seem angry
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likes -
What words, Bruce? Be specific, cause I see nothing that backs up your contention.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
They said in the post that they intended to post about 7 year old tweets. I guess you can contend that this is newsworthy & not for clicks — no one can know the motivation of the reporter & editor maybe they really are looking to inform — but the public seems to disagree
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
You: "The journalist was going to attack the subject & it backfired — that’s not a lie — it’s backed up by the editors own words which I posted." Editors: "Routine background check ... standard part of a reporter's work on a profile." You. Are. Lying.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jowens510 @brucefenton and
Tweets from 7 years ago when the subject was a minor are not part of any “routine background check.” The reason people, readers and watchers of media, are angry is because they disagree with your belief that this is legitimate background information on citizens.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likes
I'm astonished by how poor a read some journalists have on what looks normal or acceptable outside the professional bubble, even while imploding over the very idea of being subject to the norms the rest of us are to cede to should we become ever so briefly newsworthy
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.