
Des Moines Register grapples with how to handle reporter’s past tweets - smacktoward
https://thedesk.matthewkeys.net/2019/09/carson-king-des-moines-register-aaron-calvin-employment/
======
jdpedrie
As long as we continue to hold things people said as teenagers a decade ago
against them, this will continue happening. People started tweeting their
every though long before they began considering the potential future
consequences of that action. People grow and mature, and assuming the worst
thing they've ever said is an accurate reflection of their entire character is
wrong. And finally, norms have changed drastically over the last decade. I
think it's foolish to hold historical figures to today's societal norms, and I
think the same about any of us a decade ago.

We're in a state of mutually assured destruction right now. I can't imagine
that this state of affairs can hold much longer. Eventually, for all our sake,
I hope we can remember the wisdom in Christ's words, "let he who is without
sin cast the first stone".

~~~
jameskilton
This is IMO the fundamental problem with the Internet (particularly today,
Twitter and Facebook): it doesn't forget. One of humanity's greatest strengths
is that we forget. We forget slights made against us, we forget things we and
others have said, and we move on with our lives. Otherwise it would be very
difficult to live with each other.

We even have proof of this. Some people have perfect memories and never forget
anything, and while some learn how to live with it, for others it is absolute
hell. Social media has broken that contract for everyone, and we still haven't
figured out that storing and indexing everything indefinitely is actually one
of the _worst_ decision tech companies have made.

~~~
reroute1
It's the worst decision for a few people who made disparaging comments on
social media and then are put in the spotlight. The Internets permanent memory
is one of it's greatest strengths IMO not a "fundamental problem". These
stories blow over and people get on with real life, but the knowledge base and
access to information remains.

~~~
throwaheyy
Can you really, honestly say that you have never said anything that you
regretted later?

~~~
reroute1
Of course not, but that's also the case in real life and that doesn't mean the
permanence of the internet is a problem that needs fixing. Like the other
comment mentioned, things from the past should be taken with a grain of salt
online or otherwise.

------
creaghpatr
It's not that complicated, Carson King's tweets were not newsworthy and not
even remotely part of the story. By digging into the subject's background for
dirt and then leveraging that dirt to get Busch Light to cancel the
relationship, Aaron Calvin inserted himself into the story, opening the door
to the backlash.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

~~~
HeXetic
I mean to be fair, he might have dug into the old tweets just as a matter of
course, not necessarily to "find dirt".

 _Publishing_ them is a different story, however.

~~~
dfsegoat
Going through 7 years worth of tweets? That seems excessive for a cursory
"background check" of someones social media - which, according to the letter
from the editors - was how they found them, and was "standard policy" [1].

That being said, I am not a journalist. So am ignorant of standards for
something like this.

[1] -
[https://twitter.com/DMRegister/status/1176705031468457985](https://twitter.com/DMRegister/status/1176705031468457985)

~~~
danso
I agree that it was wrong to bring up the tweets during the reporting (the
subject went public with his apology before the DMR ran their profile), but
when you rhetorically ask, " _Going through 7 years worth of tweets?_ ", are
you aware of how Twitter advanced search works? You don't have to "go through
n years worth of tweets" – you can search by keyword and by author, and in
seconds, Twitter will show you any and all tweets with that keyword, across
all of time.

So it's like someone asking, "You went through billions of webpages to find my
homepage?", because they aren't aware of how Google is used. Yes, reading
through 7 years of tweets would be a huge investment of time, but searching
for keywords like "Holocaust" or the n-word is not. I haven't had to write a
profile of someone in the age of social media, but back when I worked for a
newspaper, I would routinely do a courts search for anyone I was doing a
profile on, even for fluff profile. Not because I was looking for dirt, but
because it's a process that takes a minute and prevents me from unknowingly
whitewashing someone with a fluff profile.

~~~
dfsegoat
He went public after the DMR asked him about it, to get ahead of it. At that
point they could have left it out of their yet unpublished piece.

Absolutely fair points and I totally missed the advanced search bit - you are
100% right there.

But, to that point, wouldn't it suggest even more bias if someone were simply
searching: @SUBJECT_HANDLE + <RACIST_OR_SOCIALLY_UNACCEPTABLE_TERM_KEYWORD> ?

To me, that seems like the definition of digging for dirt. But, I guess it
depends on who's side you identify with more.

I would totally be fine if they could present some sort of SOP or protocol for
doing their social media background checks in a standard way. I've seen
nothing like that.

~~~
danso
Note: I definitely don't hold it against him for going public. And the fact
that he felt the need to do so suggests to me either he is an extremely stand-
up guy, and/or the reporter asked him about it made it seem inevitable that
the tweets would be written about.

> _To me, that seems like the definition of digging for dirt._

Again, my opinion (and limited past experience) only, but I think the easy and
quick mechanics of tweet-searching makes it a routine check and not "digging
for dirt". Just like how Google and court searches can be done in a few
seconds/minutes. When I did a cursory criminal background check for the
subject of a positive news profile, it wasn't because I _wanted_ to find dirt.
It's because I don't want to put out a happy naive fuzzy article about an
award-winning local business leader, only to find out via letters from
victims/litigants who tell me he's the target of serious accusations/lawsuits.

Now _if_ finding bad tweets from someone _actually_ required collecting and
reading years of tweets, that _would_ be more akin to digging for dirt,
because you have to _work_ for it. You only put in that work when you really
want to find something.

That said, if I were the DMR reporter in this case and stumbled upon those
controversial tweets in my cursory check, I would've done the math in my head
(i.e. King was only 16 at the time), and I would've put in the work to see if
there were any recent tweets that indicate his purported bigotry is an ongoing
character trait. And if I couldn't find such tweets (which seems to be the
case with King), then I wouldn't even bring it up. I just wouldn't see that
relevant to this kind of profile, same as I probably wouldn't find it
necessary to report on or ask about minor juvenile crimes long expunged.

~~~
dfsegoat
Thanks for explaining. I found your take here quite refreshing:

> _I would 've put in the work to see if there were any recent tweets that
> indicate his purported bigotry is an ongoing character trait. And if I
> couldn't find such tweets (which seems to be the case with King), then I
> wouldn't even bring it up._

I suppose I am genuinely curious in the details of tweet searching mechanics
from an Info retrieval standpoint: Do you iterate through a list of "bad
terms" to search against the subject? If so, what is your source for such list
and how is it maintained?

I guess what I'm looking for, is could this be a standardized process set at
the 'organizational level' \- or is it a process created by individual
reporters based on personal experience?

Again - genuinely curious - no snark intended.

~~~
danso
I can't say from personal experience since I haven't had to write a profile on
anyone in the time when social media backgrounding became a common thing. In
terms of what things to search for, I imagine it's all subjective, just as
it's subjective on what you should judge someone for (social media, criminal
background, etc), but I'm sure looking for common bigoted slurs would be
standard practice.

One thing worth noting: As I understand it, Mr. King's charity campaign was
heavily based off of social media (after the initial appearance on ESPN
GameDay) – meaning that he spread it via his own Twitter account. Which makes
looking at his Twitter account and past tweets more routine, since social
media is essentially a large part of his current fame/notability. For other
kinds of profile subjects, such as "Teacher of the Year" or "veteran recalls
memories of war on war's anniversary", I'd be surprised if reporters did a
social media check. Because unless that person themself says their social
media profile is a big deal, then the reporter probably won't even be aware of
it.

------
THansenite
As someone currently living in Des Moines, this is all the city can talk about
right now. Facebook is on fire with people going after the Register,
pitchforks in hand. It is kind of ridiculous they'd dig up 8ish year old posts
this guy made in a story about his generosity towards a children's hospital,
but it seems that is what media has to do now to get eyes. The backlash on the
Register has been swift and harsh, though, and with print media already on the
decline, is probably pretty bad news for the paper overall.

~~~
leerob
Des Moines resident checking in.

I can't believe how quickly this has escalated. From a feel-good local story
to national news and now the reporter getting fired.

What leaves the worst taste in my mouth is that the Register still hasn't
apologized, and in their "statement", they still tried to shift blame back to
Carson.

------
lettergram
I feel like the most recent “battle cries” are along the lines of:

“In the name of tolerance, I cannot tolerate even one tweet disagreeing with
my world view!”

I’m glad this journalist was punished, but honestly it’s a systemic issue.

~~~
bluejekyll
Whenever tolerance is used as a scapegoat for intolerant behavior, it’s always
important to consider the Paradox of Tolerance: "In order to maintain a
tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance."

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance)

~~~
efa
And the definition of what it means to be intolerant is shifting daily.

~~~
bluejekyll
Intolerance is pretty easy to identify. I would guess that what you’re
referring to is the degree of intolerant behavior that people choose to
respond to or not.

That is, certain types of intolerant behavior have been “accepted” by society
when it is directed at certain marginalized groups or concepts. What’s changed
is that the behavior is now deemed as wrong, but it was always intolerant.

~~~
efa
I'm talking about things like calling it racist that a black girl in an H&M
catalog has messy hair.

------
thrower123
This sort of thing is inevitable given the trend of weaponizing social media
history. No one with any online presence can, over a long enough time scale,
go without eventually posting something stupid, or something that can be
construed as offensive. Especially when the line between what is acceptable
humor and not shifts over time.

The media has made a lot of hay crucifying people lately. The only way to push
back against that effectively does seem to be deploying their own tactics
against them in this kind of mutually assured destruction.

There is a high level of hubris in penning a story dragging someone for stupid
tweets made as a teenager, and not bothering to at least scrub your own
timeline before publishing.

~~~
noonespecial
I always thought that _" If you give me six lines written by the hand of the
most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him."_ quote
attributed to Richelieu was hyperbole (and so not likely to be an actual
quote).

I'm no longer sure about either of those assumptions.

~~~
efa
That reminds me of the Richard Nixon (or LBJ) recordings. There was literally
years of conversation captured. It would be pretty easy to piece together some
damaging utterances with years or recordings.

------
dsfyu404ed
I don't understand the thought process that leads to Calvin publishing (well,
submitting to his editors for review and publication) King's quotes in a
negative light when he has said similar. Wouldn't you just chalk those kind of
posts up to "meh, I'd do that, nothing to see here"?

That said, if going looking to see if someone said something stupid on social
media a decade ago is part of a "routine background check" then I think that
speaks to something larger being wrong.

~~~
mieseratte
Saw it written elsewhere:

We live in a world where a crime you committed as a teenager is washed away
but not something you said.

------
cpr
If you're in the right victim group, you can get away with anything. E.g.,

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
intersect/wp/2018/08...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-
intersect/wp/2018/08/03/an-asian-american-womans-tweets-ignite-a-debate-is-it-
okay-to-make-fun-of-white-people-online/)

------
adolph
_That reporter is no longer with the Register._

[https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/f...](https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/from-
the-editor/2019/09/26/carson-king-tweet-editor-response-investigation-iowa-
childrens-hospital-donations/3780741002/)

~~~
pp19dd
[https://archives.cjr.org/the_kicker/matthew_keys_reuters_ind...](https://archives.cjr.org/the_kicker/matthew_keys_reuters_indicted.php)

------
ineedasername
At this point, I'm surprised people don't routinely go in and look at what
they've written in the past and get rid of this sort of thing proactively.
Though I suppose a person who writes these things may be the type that
wouldn't think to go back like that.

However, I believe that as a society we need to realize that people can
change. The issue of gay marriage is a case in point: We didn't get to this
level of support just by having older folks die off with younger more
accepting folks left to support it. Prior to these systems, a person might
have been homophobic a decade ago and reconsidered their views since then,
only you'd never know it-- you would only be left with their current actions
to judge them. In my view that's much more important that what they believed
10 years or even 2 years ago.

~~~
lonelappde
Just be aware that you are victim-blaming here. The people pillorying people
for minor ancient errors are the villains, not the people who forget to hire
reputation management firms to clean their internet history.

~~~
thrower123
Assuming we are talking about the initial victim, Carson King, I would agree
with you. He's just some guy who happened to land in the limelight.

The second person that got ripped to shreds and fired over his stupid tweets
is a journalist, indeed the journalist who incited the outrage over Carson's
stupid tweets. It's little more than karmic revenge to be hoisted on his own
petard in this fashion.

------
falcolas
I heard something almost exactly like this addressed before: “They are a
fantastic person. They’re almost the perfect person. How close to perfect? Shy
by just two tweets.”

Witch hunts like this are part of the reason why countries think that the
right to be forgotten might be a good thing for their citizens.

------
Overtonwindow
I think it’s called being a hypocrite. People evolve, people change, just
because you posted something racist 10 years ago doesn’t mean you’re a racist,
doesn’t mean you’re a bigot, it means you’re an idiot. This crap of holding
things over peoples head from long ago, and then continuing to beat him with
it has got to stop.

------
rayiner
Next let’s do Ben Penn: [https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/ben-penns-bad-
faith-h...](https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/ben-penns-bad-faith-hit-
job-on-leif-olson/)

~~~
creaghpatr
That one was even more egregious, in my opinion.

------
propter_hoc
Interesting counterpoint, interview with the reporter:
[https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/juliareinstein/des-
moin...](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/juliareinstein/des-moines-
register-iowa-reporter-fired-aaron-calvin-carson)

Also includes a summary of what the reporter's own tweets were (not included
in the OP).

------
crb002
The problem was with the editor Carol Hunter. Firing the cub reporter for
writing the tabloid copy she wanted made it all the more worse. Until the
Register removes Hunter the paper is defacto dead to much of Iowa.

------
duxup
He was a kid, he grew up and has made it clear he doesn't support those past
tweets anymore.

We want people to move on from bigoted ideas right?

If so then it appears he has and that should be the end of it.

------
intopieces
Get off Twitter. Get off Instagram, get off Facebook. Get off social media
before it's weaponized against you. The eye of Sauron could be upon you at any
moment.

------
bsenftner
How'd he find "decades old tweets" when Twitter is only 13 years old?

~~~
astine
1.3 decades

~~~
tome
"Calvin used two decades-old tweets"

------
woopwoop
I cannot fathom how this story is possibly in this sites purview.

~~~
ineedasername
It's at the cross section of modern technology & its impact on society. Seems
right to me. Also, take a look at the community guidelines: They don't specify
"tech news only", and in fact specify as on-topic "anything that gratifies
one's intellectual curiosity". By that definition, pretty much anything that
gets enough up-votes to rise to the community's attention is de-facto on
topic.

Your comment, on the other hand, is decidedly against the community
guidelines: "Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a
story is spam or off-topic, flag it."

guidelines:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

