5 ms·

Did you mean to reply to my post? I'm saying this writer has presented as fact things which no one knows for certain.

gerbilly 7y ago
I did read your post, and I disagree, the writer presented the speculation of the two main characters¹ as to the nature of the 'relationship' between the prison warden and Bernice. Basically, the writer related to us what those two men believe about this event. There are two independent sources for this belief, and to me that's acceptable journalistic practise.² He is helping the two men tell their story, you are free to disagree with their speculations, but that's what they told the writer. 1: And other relatives. 2: Now the subhead, does contain the word 'rape', and that's maybe the only thing I can fault the article on. However, headlines aren't typically written by the journalist, but rather by a copy editor. I'm not sure what Buzzfeed's practises are on this.
- fapjacks 7y ago
  But if you can only fault the headline, then I don't think you read the article very thoroughly, because the writer explicitly states it was rape multiple times throughout the article. I'm not sure how you rationalize stating falsehood as any kind of "acceptable journalistic practice", but nothing else matters if the writer is making false claims. And if the cop-out is that this is "storytelling" and not "journalism" then it's a whole other issue of duplicity in publishing this clickbait with false information under the buzzfeednews.com URL. But I suppose this is the difference between Buzzfeed and legitimate journalism.
  - gerbilly 7y ago
    > I'm not sure how you rationalize stating falsehood as any kind of "acceptable journalistic practice" You're just being obtuse¹ now, it's such a reasonable inference given the circumstances that it's petty of you to place such a high burden of proof on the writer. Also you're denying one other important piece of evidence in favour of rape. Why did the mother never speak about it? If she had had a joyful affair with such high ranking member of society, wouldn't she be proud of it? Why do I even bother... 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
    - fapjacks 7y ago
      I will give you the benefit of the doubt, because what you've done here is a kind of microcosm, so intrinsic to the way people behave today that it dominates whatever passes as "public debate" in the United States. I did not say, nor do I assert, that it was not possible for the woman to have been raped. Given the circumstances, I also think it's likely to have been rape. But no one knows the facts, and it is not a foregone conclusion. And certainly not factual historical record. It is historical revisionism by someone pretending to be a journalist for monetary (and likely political) gain. If "obtuse" and a Wikipedia link is the worst I get for "calling out" this lying wannabe-journalist mass-media clickbait creator for publishing false claims as legitimate news, I'm okay with that.
      - gerbilly 7y ago
        You haven't proven your claims of lying or false claims to any reasonable standard.
        fapjacks 7y ago
        The writer explicitly states "he was 57 years old when he raped Bernice Johnson" in the paragraph directly above the photo of the Parchman Superintendent's house. So you didn't read my posts, I guess, but you also did not read the article?
        gerbilly 7y ago
        I read the article, I read your posts. I am unmoved by your arguments. You are insisting on a burden of proof that is unreasonable. When you go to the grocery store to buy a can of corn, do you require that the can be X-rayed to believe there is corn in there? I mean there could be anything in that can, who says it isn't pinto beans?
        fapjacks 7y ago
        I suspect you are surprised a lot by people and things in life, and I suspect you are also often surprised by this surprise.

I did read your post, and I disagree, the writer presented the speculation of the two main characters¹ as to the nature of the 'relationship' between the prison warden and Bernice. Basically, the writer related to us what those two men believe about this event. There are two independent sources for this belief, and to me that's acceptable journalistic practise.² He is helping the two men tell their story, you are free to disagree with their speculations, but that's what they told the writer. 1: And other relatives. 2: Now the subhead, does contain the word 'rape', and that's maybe the only thing I can fault the article on. However, headlines aren't typically written by the journalist, but rather by a copy editor. I'm not sure what Buzzfeed's practises are on this.

fapjacks 7y ago
But if you can only fault the headline, then I don't think you read the article very thoroughly, because the writer explicitly states it was rape multiple times throughout the article. I'm not sure how you rationalize stating falsehood as any kind of "acceptable journalistic practice", but nothing else matters if the writer is making false claims. And if the cop-out is that this is "storytelling" and not "journalism" then it's a whole other issue of duplicity in publishing this clickbait with false information under the buzzfeednews.com URL. But I suppose this is the difference between Buzzfeed and legitimate journalism.
- gerbilly 7y ago
  > I'm not sure how you rationalize stating falsehood as any kind of "acceptable journalistic practice" You're just being obtuse¹ now, it's such a reasonable inference given the circumstances that it's petty of you to place such a high burden of proof on the writer. Also you're denying one other important piece of evidence in favour of rape. Why did the mother never speak about it? If she had had a joyful affair with such high ranking member of society, wouldn't she be proud of it? Why do I even bother... 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
  - fapjacks 7y ago
    I will give you the benefit of the doubt, because what you've done here is a kind of microcosm, so intrinsic to the way people behave today that it dominates whatever passes as "public debate" in the United States. I did not say, nor do I assert, that it was not possible for the woman to have been raped. Given the circumstances, I also think it's likely to have been rape. But no one knows the facts, and it is not a foregone conclusion. And certainly not factual historical record. It is historical revisionism by someone pretending to be a journalist for monetary (and likely political) gain. If "obtuse" and a Wikipedia link is the worst I get for "calling out" this lying wannabe-journalist mass-media clickbait creator for publishing false claims as legitimate news, I'm okay with that.
    - gerbilly 7y ago
      You haven't proven your claims of lying or false claims to any reasonable standard.
      - fapjacks 7y ago
        The writer explicitly states "he was 57 years old when he raped Bernice Johnson" in the paragraph directly above the photo of the Parchman Superintendent's house. So you didn't read my posts, I guess, but you also did not read the article?
        gerbilly 7y ago
        I read the article, I read your posts. I am unmoved by your arguments. You are insisting on a burden of proof that is unreasonable. When you go to the grocery store to buy a can of corn, do you require that the can be X-rayed to believe there is corn in there? I mean there could be anything in that can, who says it isn't pinto beans?
        fapjacks 7y ago
        I suspect you are surprised a lot by people and things in life, and I suspect you are also often surprised by this surprise.