B) How did Carson King suffer the consequences? lol
Didn't a "broadly" circulated newspaper call him a racist? That seems kinda bad.
B) How did Carson King suffer the consequences? lol
From the article:
"As I told King, I don’t think it is fair to use someone’s old tweets to make blanket assaults on their character."
So then why do a background search, talk to Carson King about the offensive tweets, get both context and an apology from Carson, only to include it in the story anyway? The part about Carson's offensive tweets came out of nowhere and didn't fit in the piece.
Didn't a "broadly" circulated newspaper call him a racist? That seems kinda bad.
Why would I need to prove you wrong?? Weirdo.
Nothing weird about it, all your reactions to people's posts are what is weird. I'll just take your non-response to my question as acknowledgment that one of my assumptions must be right. If I'm wrong you would have had no issue denying them.
I haven't seen anything negative happen to him. Maybe it has but seems like he has made out pretty well.
I read Calvin's original article. It is not about Carson King's growth. It's about the Gameday deal, and everything after.
He tosses the mention of the tweets in at the very end, and there's no context, no quotes from King about how he regretted them, and no mention of the several anti-racism tweets that King made much later in life, and closer to the moment being profiled.
He's back pedaling pretty hard, and that's a big part of why I have a hard time sympathizing with Calvin. It was pretty clearly "gotcha" journalism. And the tweets were leaked to AB. He knew what he was doing, and so did the Register.
Are you cereal? Branded a racist, international embarrassment, legal fees, being used as a tool by right wingers for political gains (I'm a right-winger and do NOT approve)...
Are you cereal? Branded a racist, international embarrassment, legal fees, being used as a tool by right wingers for political gains (I'm a right-winger and do NOT approve)...
why do we think the tweets were leaked to AB? They should have done their own research.
Right. Didn’t this kid earlier allude to his firing being due to right wing agenda?I thought it was enlightening when he said most of the "reporters" are 20-somethings. One thing I THINK I understand about SOME 20-somethings it's they have zero world view beyond their artificial on-line world.
This isn't about media bias, it's about having "news" presented to you filtered through a person that has no perspective.
Is there a link for this?I think it was confirmed that AB learned separately of the tweets.
The Register denied "informing" AB about the tweets. That doesn't necessarily exclude that they didn't "ask for comment" about said tweets, therefore alerting AB to dig for them.I think it was confirmed that AB learned separately of the tweets.
Is there a link for this?
There was plenty of people calling for Calvin's job...and his life, for that matter. These people were not sane people, but they were out there, and there's plenty of them.I don't recall anybody really calling for the guy's job. Didn't they just want the Register to apologize and admit they made a mistake? They didn't need to fire the reporter. All that did was validate why everybody was pissed off at the register in the first place.
The Register denied "informing" AB about the tweets. That doesn't necessarily exclude that they didn't "ask for comment" about said tweets, therefore alerting AB to dig for them.
It also doesn't mean the Register did ask them about the tweets, it is a very interesting choice of words though. (asking a question is not technically informing)
I'm good with a generic background check, but it should have been a no-brainer to determine the tweets didn't add to the story or provide any context to the story and pass on reporting them.
No, it is not. If I ask you a question about your comments regarding something you are not aware or informed of, I am not informing you. I am asking for your comments about something you are unaware. You would have to 'inform' yourself on the topic.Um, that is the same thing. If they asked them about them and AB didn't know, they informed them.
It's a possible explanation but very dangerous for a news outlet if they get caught in such lexical gymnastics.No, it is not. If I ask you a question about your comments regarding something you are not aware or informed of, I am not informing you. I am asking for your comments about something you are unaware. You would have to 'inform' yourself on the topic.
For instance; if the Register asked AB about King's twitter history, they are not informing AB on specific tweets. Heck, they can ask specifically about those tweets and still rightfully claim that they didn't inform them of their existence, as they'd only be specifically asking about their comments.