Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Bigman38, Nov 4, 2019.
Didn't a "broadly" circulated newspaper call him a racist? That seems kinda bad.
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, they didn't.
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.
Ok, cool. I really don't care what you think. You can think I am the antichrist for all I care and I will do nothing to prove you wrong on that point either.
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.
who has branded him a racist? Literally no one.
I have never seen him branded a racist or being an international embarrassment, but maybe I am not seeing the same sources or whatever that you are. What legal fees? How does being used as a tool for right wingers a negative consequence for him? I mean the guy raised more money, is still out there raising money, has a day named after him, got invited to the Iowa game as a special guest. He continues to receive a ton of love and support. Seems like he got even more popular after the article.
I think it was confirmed that AB learned separately of the tweets.
Right. Didn’t this kid earlier allude to his firing being due to right wing agenda?
Knowing your audience is important in that profession, as is not having a record of public racist tweets. Employment at a reputable newspaper may not be in the cards for him. The DMR needs better hiring criteria.
Is there a link for this?
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)
To the best of my knowledge (I even submitted a question to the Register in regards) the Register has not clarified on this detail.
Believe it was in a Washington Post article I read about the story.
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.
Um, that is the same thing. If they asked them about them and AB didn't know, they informed them.
Hence why the editor should have been sacked here as much as or more so than the reporter.
Also, should probably sack whomever was responsible for background checking the reporter.
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.
i love this:
It's a possible explanation but very dangerous for a news outlet if they get caught in such lexical gymnastics.