
Iowa reporter who exposed racist tweets fired for own tweets - apsec112
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49857358
======
codeddesign
This is exactly why people call a lot of “news” fake news. That news outlet
was not doing journalism but rather a smear piece for the purpose of views.
The guy was 16. Everyone would be fired if they dug up everyone that was done
in their teens years and accountable for it today.

This is news outlet abusively used their power without caring for the
consequences of what it would to this man.

I’m getting really tired of this shaming. I oppose gay marriage, I oppose
abortion, and while they’re are racists, I don’t believe their is
institutional fascism taking place based upon the color of skin.

...but that is what makes our country great. We can have different view
points. We can have discussions. When we take away those we begin to turn into
a society similar to China where it’s not acceptable to have differing views
and certainly not discussion.

~~~
loopz
We get the news that sells. Otherwise, everyone should have their own staff of
investiative reporters. It is simply cause-and-effect from the established
conditions.

What this shows is that "cancel culture" is utterly toxic, and cuts both ways.
You don't get to dehumanize people without reprecussions to your own status
anymore. News media should reflect on their role and function in society once
more too, as the focus on "dirt" just ends us all up in the same swamp
inevitably.

The simple truth is, according to ethnicity and color of skin, the
availability of opportunities are vastly different. That is institutional and
cultural, that is now being adressed. One can choose to shut their eyes, ears
and mind, or reach out a hand and try to understand the underlying issues and
how other people think and feel about it below the hurt.

~~~
codeddesign
I don’t disagree with you on the last point. However, I believe a lot of it is
cultural and environment rather than color of skin.

To give a completely honest example.. Some one speaking British English will
likely sound more educated than some one speaking Ebonics. This perception
caries over to areas such as business. A person with the perception of being
“educated” will likely have higher sales numbers compared to the latter.

Home life is critical. Asians for example as part of the culture place a very
high standard on education (in general - based upon my own life knowledge)
while other culture do not.

Those were just some points. I do believe there is an issue, but I heavily
disagree that their is systemic racism due to skin color that is stopping
those that are black (for example) from achieving greater financial success.

~~~
loopz
Feel free to disagree :) The problem is the same, wether it's technically due
to skin color or not though. Try migrating to another country, it's not easy
to integrate, and can be very hit'n miss for anybody.

It's much the same problems, and in need to be solving as to get more equal
participation in society. There's also degrees, and no secret that
discrimination/favourism is systematic in many countries simply due to tone of
skin.

It needs extra effort, or remain systematic and institutional. Marginalization
simply cannot be afforded.

~~~
raxxorrax
I don't think people should adapt to me if I emigrate to another country. I
wouldn't want to be a problem case either.

What we need is the same rules applying to everyone. For all skin colors.
There is a huge barrier to get access to the judicial system because of very
high lawyer fees. These are real problems, not the distribution of skin shades
for certain occupation. On the contrary, that is pretty racist.

I don't believe in systematic racism. I believe we are in a bad situation
where people have economic incentives to keep it alive, as perverse as this
sounds.

Unequal treatment before the law cannot be afforded.

------
dwd
You need to read the journalist's own account as to how this all blew up. He
provides a lot more context and nuance as to who tweeted what and when, but
basically screwed up and should have checked his own online history as well.

[https://www.cjr.org/first_person/aaron-calvin-viral-story-
tw...](https://www.cjr.org/first_person/aaron-calvin-viral-story-tweets.php)

~~~
ponker
He should have "checked his online history" and realized that maybe he didn't
need to write about another person's online history. I don't see him looking
any better here -- he casually lobbed a rock at another man and then got all
whiny about "editorial integrity" when the rock got thrown at him.

~~~
dwd
Perception is everything. Doesn't really matter if you said or did a
particular thing - if people think you did then no amount of explanation will
fix that. He can say that he was just mentioning it as an aside of the story,
but that's not how it was perceived.

He should have dropped it after the guy apologies and deleted them, and I
could believe his hands were tied and it was an editorial decision to include
it, but having your own credibility in order, no matter how insignificant you
may think you are is imperative before you put your name to something that
you're hoping blows up.

"Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come
to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its
Effect…"

~~~
ponker
The "just mentioning it as an aside" doesn't really hold even a drop of water
given the well-known implications of racism allegations. It's like spending a
few hours covering someone's car in silly string (Very annoying, but not
sociopathic) and then quickly cutting their brake lines as "an aside."

~~~
dwd
I agree with you completely, he was outing the guy whichever way he tries to
spin his motives. Should have done him the favour of pointing it out and left
it at that.

------
2038AD
It's pretty funny that a lot of these cases of 'cancel culture' aren't the mob
("Twitter, do your thing") but journalists going after regular people. As it
turns out it's far easier to expose someone without power.

We're a pretty perverse society that random acts of harassment is being viewed
with the television lens of "cancellation". That is a risk with the social
medium.

Another irony of the situation is that, with the primary center being Twitter,
the transgressions have to be minor. Accounts that break the rules (i.e. are
racist) are routinely and correctly banned and as such have all their
transgressions erased.

~~~
jariel
'Cancel Culture' is generally not 'a mob' \- it's usually journos or
individuals leveraging or hyping up a little bit of a mob.

A Board is not going to dump a CEO because of just some angry people on
Twitter, it's the pressure exerted by amplified voices, particularly those in
the press. Once a fire starts, a lot of other writer tend to to pile on.

If everything were just on Twitter, nobody would care. It's the
'newsification' of Twitter that creates the problem.

The Board cannot ignore CNN, WaPo and all the ruffling they casuse.

------
Covzire
"It said that while in high school eight years earlier, Mr King had tweeted
two racist jokes about black people."

This insanity needs to end.

~~~
aklemm
Yes, hopefully it will become so abhorrent that it will be obvious even to
teenagers that race “jokes” aren’t acceptable.

~~~
apsec112
"But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning He returned to
the temple. All the people came to Him, and He sat down and taught them. The
scribes and Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery. When they had put
her in the middle, they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the
very act of adultery. Now Moses in the law commanded us to stone such, but
what do You say?” They said this, testing Him, that they might have something
of which to accuse Him.

But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He
did not hear them. So when they continued asking Him, He stood up and said to
them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at
her.” Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.

Being convicted by their conscience, those who heard it went out one by one,
beginning with the eldest even to the last. Jesus was left alone, and the
woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had stood up and saw no one but the
woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are your accusers? Did no one condemn
you?”

She said, “No one, Lord.”

Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.”"

~~~
aklemm
Contextually, that’s nonsense.

~~~
t0mbstone
I'm not religious but it makes sense to me:

"Don't condemn other people for making the mistake of saying racist things in
their past if you have said racist things in YOUR past yourself"

It's very logical.

------
ChrisGranger
(2019)

------
ponker
The leaders of "cancel culture" are usually destined to become a Danton,
Hebert, or Robespierre.

~~~
TMWNN
The difference is of degree, not kind.

To put another way, if the leaders of a modern mob had the power to execute
their targets the way Danton or Robespierre did, who is confident that they
would not let the guillotine blade fall?

~~~
ponker
I agree, but I was more talking about how those who would become self-styled
enforcers of ideological purity tests often find themselves sufficiently
impure and lose their heads the same way they took them.

------
Noos
No sympathy. Cancel culture was all fine and good when it was used on people
the progressive left didn't like, but when now it's applied to themselves? OMG
its gone too far! I hope they enjoy the world they made.

------
jariel
We really need a law or rule that protects people from this stuff. If you
can't 'go to adult jail' when you're 16, you shouldn't go to 'twitter jail'
either.

Moreover - more subtly and more importantly - most teens in 2020 have
absolutely no context for racism, 'spouse abuse' and these things (many do,
but most don't).

Teens say crazy, crazy things. They'll compare a lot of things to Gorillas,
including, sadly 'Black people' \- of course it's not right, but there is a
context of 'extreme locker room talk' and they'll just say anything. I don't
think they mean any of it, it's like someone making a joke about 'The English'
\- it's not meant to be hateful or offensive, it's just excessive joking
around.

It's only when you're an adult, when you see that 'some things are real' does
it take another context then all of a sudden words really become a problem.

For example - if this joke were not 'written down on record' \- nobody, I mean
nobody would care a single bit that he 'said something when he was 16' even if
we knew for sure he said it. That it is 'on the record' is effectively what
makes it 'situationally toxic' wherein brands have no choice but to back off,
and HR teams hands are 'forced' into action.

Twitter should also have a policy on this.

~~~
dragonwriter
> If you can't 'go to adult jail' when you're 16

You absolutely can go to adult jail at 16.

~~~
jariel
Yes, if you're a stone cold killer, but otherwise, we have a separate set of
rules for minors.

~~~
dragonwriter
You don't have to be a “stone cold killer”, in fact, the vast majority of
juveniles transferred to criminal instead of juvenile court are for nonviolent
offenses.

It would be _more_ accurate (though still very incompletely so) to say “if
you're black”.

~~~
jariel
Edit: I edited this comment to reflect the 'vast majority of cases transferred
to adult court are for non-violent offences' \- not - 'the vast majority of
juvenile cases are waived to adult court' which was my original
interpretation.

Only about 1/2 of Juvenile cases are even processed, and a tiny amount, about
0.6% go to adult court. [1]

And if by 'vast majority of cases are for non-violent offences' you mean to
say about 1/2 - then that's about right. (About 1/2 of the cases that are
waived to adult court involve 'crimes against the person', the other 1/2 are
property theft, drugs, public disorder).

That some are for violent offences, some are for other types of crimes is
relevant, but less so in the context that very few cases go to adult court.

As for race: Black people are more likely to be waived to 'adult court' but
it's mostly a function of the fact they are significantly more likely to be
involved in physical crimes against the person, i.e. assault. Though they are
overrepresented in all crimes. - for drugs and theft, they are less
overrepresented, and White kids, for example are relatively more likely to go
to 'adult court' for such crimes (i.e. drugs and theft) given the case rate.
Because of the seriousness of violent crimes, which are inherently more likely
to be referred to adult court, and the significant overrepresentation of Black
kids in that category - more of them in are referred to adult court in
relative terms. But the differential between races is small, and, the overall
share of cases waived to adult court is quite small.

Again: we have completely different systems for adults and juveniles.

[1]
[https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/njcda/pdf/jcs2016.pdf](https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/njcda/pdf/jcs2016.pdf)

