• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

People Who Have Glass Twitter Accounts...

Darat said:
I disagree. His past comments don't seem to have anything to do with the story of him raising money for charity so there was no journalistic reason to include facts which were not pertinent to the story.
Click to expand...

It was a story about his life, how he got here, his upbringing. Feels pertinent to me.

Something else omitted from the criticism of Calvin was that the tweets were already a controversy and arguably current news.

The reason the paper decided to include a sidebar about the tweets was that it was already a topic in the media. He had been on TV discussing it a couple of days earlier. The local NBC affiliate TV station was the first to report the tweets, the paper's editors felt ignoring that was shifting from reporting to editorial. I have no idea why nobody's digging into the anchorman's social media, for example.

So, as I said above, I think there's reason to consider Calvin's content to be genuine journalism.

The people criticizing him with hit jobs, on the other hand, not so much. I think they're hypocrites.
 
blutoski said:
It was a story about his life, how he got here, his upbringing. Feels pertinent to me.

Something else omitted from the criticism of Calvin was that the tweets were already a controversy and arguably current news.

The reason the paper decided to include a sidebar about the tweets was that it was already a topic in the media. He had been on TV discussing it a couple of days earlier. The local NBC affiliate TV station was the first to report the tweets, the paper's editors felt ignoring that was shifting from reporting to editorial. I have no idea why nobody's digging into the anchorman's social media, for example.

So, as I said above, I think there's reason to consider Calvin's content to be genuine journalism.

The people criticizing him with hit jobs, on the other hand, not so much. I think they're hypocrites.
Click to expand...

possibly useful link:
[NBC 13 WHOTV: Carson King Apologizes After ‘Hurtful and Embarrassing’ Tweet Surfaces]

relevant quote:
"The Des Moines Register has been nothing but kind in all of their coverage, and I appreciate the reporter pointing out the post to me. I want everyone to understand that this was my decision to publicly address the posts and apologize. I believe that is the right thing to do."
Click to expand...
 
Darat said:
I disagree. His past comments don't seem to have anything to do with the story of him raising money for charity so there was no journalistic reason to include facts which were not pertinent to the story.
Click to expand...


Agreed.
 
Darat said:
No sympathy for him at all, I never felt I needed to.post racist comments and jokes on my Twitter account when I was 16!
Click to expand...


You know, it's easy to say this kind of thing (and yes, I get the joke), but people really do need to get some perspective here.

When I was young, low-level racist humour was commonplace. Even people who would never have knowingly acted in a racist manner engaged in the odd off-hand racist or sexist joke. It's easy to say "well, you all knew better", but really, did we? It was something that we heard all the time from our parents and peers, so... And if there's anything defining the mentality of children and teens, it's a certain social obliviousness, empathy is something that needs to be learned and developed over time, often through experience, through seeing how your words and actions affect others.

Many of us are very fortunate in that respect, in that we grew up in an age without a persistent record of nearly everything we say and do. I certainly would not want every single stupid thing that came out of my mouth, or stupid stunt I pulled, made a matter of public record.

Everyone has done and said things they're ashamed of. Anyone who says they haven't is either a liar or a sociopath. Kids are idiots, and learning to not be idiots is part of growing up. People change, for good or for ill, that's unavoidable. What matters is who we are now, and who we are trying to be.

If this guy has changed for the better, then dredging this kind of crap up in this manner serves no useful social purpose; and looks a bit like tall poppy syndrome, punishing someone for achieving more than the masses.
 
blutoski said:
The dilemma they had was to run what they knew or abandon objective journalism and become 'part of the story' by suppressing relevant information from the readers for personal reasons.
Click to expand...


This is one of the worst justifications I've heard for numerous cases of journalistic over-reach. Journalists are by definition "part of the story" simply by reporting on it. Every journalist has to decide which facts are relevant to the story they want to tell, and which are not, and every journalist has biases that bleed through into their reporting. Pure objectivity is a good principle to strive for, but it's ultimately impossible, and anyone who claims they're entirely objective is a liar or self-deluded, and a bad journalist as a result.
 
luchog said:
You know, it's easy to say this kind of thing (and yes, I get the joke), but people really do need to get some perspective here.

When I was young, low-level racist humour was commonplace. Even people who would never have knowingly acted in a racist manner engaged in the odd off-hand racist or sexist joke. It's easy to say "well, you all knew better", but really, did we? It was something that we heard all the time from our parents and peers, so... And if there's anything defining the mentality of children and teens, it's a certain social obliviousness, empathy is something that needs to be learned and developed over time, often through experience, through seeing how your words and actions affect others.
Click to expand...

Amen. I was old enough to watch the news during the early 1960s and remember being outraged when Bull Connor turned the firehoses on the marchers in Selma. I hated racism. But at the same time, we all grew up learning "Eenie, meenie, minie moe, catch a ****** by the toe." I remember my mom suggesting that we use the word tiger instead, which we did whenever she was around. The funny thing was that we didn't even know what the word ****** meant.

In my hometown there were no black people, and I was actually 8 years old when I met one in person. My mom had had a heart attack and needed help around the house, so they hired a maid named Dolores. My reaction was somewhat amusing; I looked up at her and said I had never seen such white eyes.

Many of us are very fortunate in that respect, in that we grew up in an age without a persistent record of nearly everything we say and do. I certainly would not want every single stupid thing that came out of my mouth, or stupid stunt I pulled, made a matter of public record.
Click to expand...

Don't go back to your elementary school--they've still got your permanent record on file. ;)
 
Last edited:
luchog said:
This is one of the worst justifications I've heard for numerous cases of journalistic over-reach. Journalists are by definition "part of the story" simply by reporting on it. Every journalist has to decide which facts are relevant to the story they want to tell, and which are not, and every journalist has biases that bleed through into their reporting. Pure objectivity is a good principle to strive for, but it's ultimately impossible, and anyone who claims they're entirely objective is a liar or self-deluded, and a bad journalist as a result.
Click to expand...

As someone once said, "You probably can't be totally objective, but you can try to be fair".
 
"Mouthy adolescent grows up and matures into a pretty good guy" shocker

Pictures at 6!


(FFS, I would not want to be held accountable for some of the the things I said and did when I was a teenager).


"One of those posts was brought to my attention by a member of the media today. I had no recollection of it. In re-reading it today – eight years later – I see it was an attempt at humor that was offensive and hurtful.

I am so embarrassed and stunned to reflect on what I thought was funny when I was 16 years old. I want to sincerely apologize.

Thankfully, high school kids grow up and hopefully become responsible and caring adults. I think my feelings are better summed up by a post from just 3 years ago:

"Until we as a people learn that racism and hate are learned behaviors, we won’t get rid of it. Tolerance towards others is the first step." -- July 8, 2016

Classy young man this!
 
Last edited:
But if it weren't for the reporter writing about the guy's past remarks you wouldn't now be able to praise him for classiness in changing his behavior over time!

Shooting the messenger because you dislike the message is usually foolish. It's doubly foolish when you actually like the message.
 
blutoski said:
It was a story about his life, how he got here, his upbringing. Feels pertinent to me.

Something else omitted from the criticism of Calvin was that the tweets were already a controversy and arguably current news.

The reason the paper decided to include a sidebar about the tweets was that it was already a topic in the media. He had been on TV discussing it a couple of days earlier. The local NBC affiliate TV station was the first to report the tweets, the paper's editors felt ignoring that was shifting from reporting to editorial. I have no idea why nobody's digging into the anchorman's social media, for example.

So, as I said above, I think there's reason to consider Calvin's content to be genuine journalism.

The people criticizing him with hit jobs, on the other hand, not so much. I think they're hypocrites.
Click to expand...
Given your explanation I would agree with you and disagree with Darat! If the media had already been reporting his tweets and the newspaper was then running a report about him and his life then yes it was acceptable that the tweets were mentioned.
 
A colleague of mine had a student who said he missed an exam due to illness, so she reluctantly agreed to allow for a make-up. Make-ups are annoying, and something didn't sit right with the guy's excuse, so she Googled his social media. Universities look at social media for admission, so she figured it wasn't a big deal. Sure enough, he had spent the weekend attending various social functions and getting wasted. She ended up not mentioning what she discovered and just let him take the exam. If man were "investagoogling" a co-ed, he'd be wise to also say nothing.

I don't know why people don't go back and clean their page. They certainly do it after a bitter break-up. No regrats for racism.
 
Planigale said:
Yes it is almost as if teenagers don't grow up and become mature adults!

Even if he was an out and out bad person, this does not mean he cannot do a good thing, and doing good things should be encouraged perhaps especially if done by a bad person. The fact that the journalist raised the issue at all just makes him seem petty and spiteful, even if the journalist had never said anything inappropriate.

OTOH, the fact that the journalist may have said some racist things in the past should not prevent him from pointing out racist behaviour in others, but this should be limited to 'public figures' and active behaviour not teen age bad taste in someone who is essentially a nonentity.
Click to expand...

I'm glad that social media didn't exist when I was a teenager and that there is no record of some of the stupid stuff I said and did.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom