3 ms·
Based on the paper's own statement about the situation, it was the paper's management that told him to do this search, and when he found posts made as a minor,
by droithomme 7y ago
Based on the paper's own statement about the situation, it was the paper's management that told him to do this search, and when he found posts made as a minor, he presented them to the paper's management who made the decision that the posts were relevant and ordered the reporter to publish the posts despite his own misgivings about it. They then pilloried him when it all blew up in their faces, and sacrificed him, but it was management that steered the entire affair and made the decision to publish.
For some reason the management is reluctant to fire themselves for their shameful and unprofessional behavior, which is the appropriate action at this point. It's distasteful that management is now denying their own culpability and setting out a scape-goat given they not not only previously admitted their culpability, but self-righteously bragged about it in an open letter to subscribers.
Any journalists considering working for this paper in the future will likely carefully consider the risk of working for someone who orders you to to unethical things, then when that backfires, destroys your entire professional career in order to protect their own bad decisions from themselves.
- xtiansimon 7y ago> “...it was the paper’s management ... who made the decision the posts were relevant and ordered the reporter to publish...” That is not what the article says happened: >> “Calvin said his editors told him to ask King about the tweets, so he did. [...] In writing his profile, Calvin said he decided to include just a ‘brief mention of these tweets...’.“
- droithomme 7y agoI'm going by actual original sources, which I named: the paper's official initial statement written by Senior Editor Carol Hunter about what happened and the timeline. Not the yellow journalism and factually incorrect Buzz Feed summary OP gave and which you quoted, and were fooled by. It's just as I summarized. The reporter approached management. A discussion between editors ensued. And "Register editors" made the decision to include the angle about the posts as a minor, claiming that the posts were relevant and should be disclosed in the article for the benefit of anyone who has "donated money to King's cause or were planning to do so". Then then boldly summarized and justified their decision as "rooted in what we perceive as the public good".
- xtiansimon 7y agoPlease provide a link, or bibliographic reference.
- droithomme 7y agohttps://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22donated+money+to+King%27s+cause+or+were+planning+to+do+so%22 https://lmgtfy.com/?q=%22donated+money+to+King%27s+cause+or+...