Should this journalist be fired?

[Bengalsrob]

(04-08-2016, 05:03 PM)Benton Wrote: Two different things.

The WaPo story is pointing out what's already out there — lawsuits, social media comments, allegations by judges — which is not necessarily news, but it is concerning facts. You may not agree with the subject matter but it's stuff that's happened. The show has been sued. At least one judge publicly questioned why people of color didn't advance. 

The Facebook post made by the newscaster was a bunch of offhand opinion and guesses. That is not news, it's opinion and guesses. And she was correctly fired because a a news person, some people can't tell the difference, especially if it's coming from someone paid to know the difference.

And questioning if something is racist is not the same as saying a crime had to be committed by a person of race.

Racism lawsuit was dismissed. It was filed by ten former black contestants that were let go who predominantly had been previously been charged and/or convicted of miscellaneous crimes. To be fair, all but one waited too long to file a lawsuit, and the final one was actually kicked off the show (and was upheld by the courts) because he was in a band previous to being on the show, Found cases of judges fighting, and Elton John was questioning why some black contestants did not advance because in his estimation these kids were superior talents, none of which changes the fact that once the contest hits the ten finalists, the votes are made by the viewing audience....FACT that seems to have been overlooked in favor of rumors and failed lawsuits. Social media comments hardly justify making up lies about results, poor journalism, imo. The Pittsburgh case I really don't have enough facts to form an opinion on, though she should have taken her opinions to her personal facebook and not one affiliated with her work. Free speech is a very objective thing.

[*bfine32*]

(04-08-2016, 05:57 PM)Bengalsrob Wrote: Racism lawsuit was dismissed. It was filed by ten former black contestants that were let go who predominantly had been previously been charged and/or convicted of miscellaneous crimes. To be fair, all but one waited too long to file a lawsuit, and the final one was actually kicked off the show (and was upheld by the courts) because he was in a band previous to being on the show, Found cases of judges fighting, and Elton John was questioning why some black contestants did not advance because in his estimation these kids were superior talents, none of which changes the fact that once the contest hits the ten finalists, the votes are made by the viewing audience....FACT that seems to have been overlooked in favor of rumors and failed lawsuits. Social media comments hardly justify making up lies about results, poor journalism, imo. The Pittsburgh case I really don't have enough facts to form an opinion on, though she should have taken her opinions to her personal facebook and not one affiliated with her work. Free speech is a very objective thing.

It is OK if you muse about racism as long as it's white folk doing the bad things in your musings.

[Sovereign Nation]

(04-08-2016, 06:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It is OK if you muse about racism as long as it's white folk doing the bad things in your musings.

Yep.

[Benton]

(04-08-2016, 05:57 PM)Bengalsrob Wrote: Racism lawsuit was dismissed. It was filed by ten former black contestants that were let go who predominantly had been previously been charged and/or convicted of miscellaneous crimes. To be fair, all but one waited too long to file a lawsuit, and the final one was actually kicked off the show (and was upheld by the courts) because he was in a band previous to being on the show, Found cases of judges fighting, and Elton John was questioning why some black contestants did not advance because in his estimation these kids were superior talents, none of which changes the fact that once the contest hits the ten finalists, the votes are made by the viewing audience....FACT that seems to have been overlooked in favor of rumors and failed lawsuits. Social media comments hardly justify making up lies about results, poor journalism, imo. The Pittsburgh case I really don't have enough facts to form an opinion on, though she should have taken her opinions to her personal facebook and not one affiliated with her work. Free speech is a very objective thing.

Dismissed didn't mean it didn't happen. That's the difference. One is talking about things that actually happened, the other was the rambling of a reporter about how she "knew" black people did it.

And by happened, I don't mean discrimination happened. I mean the lawsuits happened. The judge questioning happened. Which is different than saying black people committed a crime when you have no proof.

If you can't see the difference in retelling things that happened versus making up things she thought happened, I dunno any other way to explain it.

[*bfine32*]

(04-08-2016, 07:37 PM)Benton Wrote: Dismissed didn't mean it didn't happen. That's the difference. One is talking about things that actually happened, the other was the rambling of a reporter about how she "knew" black people did it.

And by happened, I don't mean discrimination happened. I mean the lawsuits happened. The judge questioning happened. Which is different than saying black people committed a crime when you have no proof.

If you can't see the difference in retelling things that happened versus making up things she thought happened, I dunno any other way to explain it.

Have people like she described committed actual crimes in that area in the past?

[GMDino]

(04-08-2016, 05:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But wasn't the Newscaster also pointing to facts that were already out there  (ie crimes in that neighborhood conducted by the types she suggested one who draw a mental image to?) Just like the piece in the OP she was just comparing past facts to a current happening. 

No she was suggesting that because it happened in the past that was the way it was now and filling her "ideas" with stereotypes.

The OP is a reaction to other people complaining about it.

Also, again, one is a reality show and the other was a criminal investigation.

(04-08-2016, 06:09 PM)bfine32 Wrote: It is OK if you muse about racism as long as it's white folk doing the bad things in your musings.

Yes, no one ever muses about "reverse  racism" and BLM and black on black crime and....

(04-08-2016, 06:26 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Yep.

Well, there's a surprise... 

(04-08-2016, 07:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Have people like she described committed actual crimes in that area in the past?

Yes.  So have white people.  And people with two parents.  And people with jobs.  

[*bfine32*]

(04-08-2016, 09:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: Yes.  So have white people.  And people with two parents.  And people with jobs.  

...and Black folk have won American Idol.

I just don't get the logic behind: One is OK because there was allegation (no actual happening) of something happening in the past and one is not OK because things have actually happened in the past.

Both articles use things that have happened in the past (only one side pointed to action that actually happened)  to make commentary on something that happened in the present.

There may be another difference. Let's see if we can find what it is.  

[GMDino]

(04-08-2016, 09:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: ...and Black folk have won American Idol.

I just don't get the logic behind: One is OK because there was allegation (no actual happening) of something happening in the past and one is not OK because things have actually happened in the past.

Both articles use things that have happened in the past (only one side pointed to action that actually happened)  to make commentary on something that happened in the present.

There may be another difference. Let's see if we can find what it is.  

One is an article about a reality show that is using social media to make its "point".

The other was a newscaster claiming to know who committed a murder based on racial profiling.

Logic.

[Benton]

(04-08-2016, 07:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Have people like she described committed actual crimes in that area in the past?

Murdered people at barbecues? I have no earthly idea. I don't live in Pittsburgh and I don't keep up with every homicide. That's a lot of work.

[*bfine32*]

(04-09-2016, 12:10 AM)Benton Wrote: Murdered people at barbecues? I have no earthly idea. I don't live in Pittsburgh and I don't keep up with every homicide. That's a lot of work.

You don't know about one but somehow you know the 2 situations are different and have "nothing" for folks that can't see it. 

Amazing.

[*bfine32*]

(04-08-2016, 10:32 PM)GMDino Wrote: One is an article about a reality show that is using social media to make its "point".

The other was a newscaster claiming to know who committed a murder based on racial profiling.

Logic.

None of this points to the logic of why one journalist has done a better job of reporting and should not be fired and another one should. 

The Pittsburgh newscaster did not claim to know who murdered anyone, she just said we could form a mental imagine based on previous actions. 

There is a difference in the 2 articles and it is obvious. It is entertaining to see folks try to say it is something else. 

[Benton]

(04-09-2016, 12:20 AM)bfine32 Wrote: You don't know about one but somehow you know the 2 situations are different and have "nothing" for folks that can't see it. 

Amazing.

Pretty much. I'm amazed that there are people who dont see the difference in something that actually happened (lawsuits, accusations by participants) and someone who just rambled on about what they thought happened. One is fact, the other is opinion.

That people dont understand the difference in events and opinions of events is amazing.

[JustWinBaby]

(04-09-2016, 03:18 AM)Benton Wrote: That people dont understand the difference in events and opinions of events is amazing.

I think most people understand the difference between a facebook post, an editorial, and an allegedly factual article.  Most people.

[GMDino]

(04-09-2016, 12:24 AM)bfine32 Wrote: None of this points to the logic of why one journalist has done a better job of reporting and should not be fired and another one should. 

The Pittsburgh newscaster did not claim to know who murdered anyone, she just said we could form a mental imagine based on previous actions. 

There is a difference in the 2 articles and it is obvious. It is entertaining to see folks try to say it is something else. 

One posted her personal opinion on her work related page and her employer didn't like it and fired her.

The other posted an article that was vetted by their employer.

It is entertaining when white folk want to pretend they are downtrodden and put upon by all this "reverse racism".

[fredtoast]

(04-09-2016, 12:24 AM)bfine32 Wrote: There is a difference in the 2 articles and it is obvious. It is entertaining to see folks try to say it is something else. 

One is about allegations of racism and stereotyping.

One is racism and stereotyping.

It is entertaining to watch Bfine try to figure which is which.