I just don't get why slate would poison their brand by writing things like this. >The proximate cause of Harris’ smarm was neither a teenager nor a Twitter tro

I just don't get why slate would poison their brand by writing things like this. >The proximate cause of Harris’ smarm was neither a teenager nor a Twitter troll but an actor who had made the rather old-fashioned mistake of saying something dumb to a journalist. In an interview promoting a movie, Liam Neeson had bizarrely volunteered that as a younger man, he had once roamed the streets hoping to be provoked into killing a black man—any black man—in retaliation for a friend’s rape. Harris, who has a practiced eye for these things, saw great liberal hypocrisy in the way that many people online had read racism into Neeson’s statement. Liam Neeson was talking about something bad he did a long time ago. In the interview he calls it horrible. Neeson privately thought bad and racist things decades ago, and then volunteered that and his reflections and condemnations on it. This was then distorted by sensationalist news headlines to make Neeson seem like a racist. In slate, the author summarizes it to make Harris's view seem absurd and Neeson clearly racist. If you don't follow things like this, I can't imagine why you'd care. If you do, slate's misrepresentation is obvious and transparent. They are confusing the issue to slander Harris, Rogan, and Neeson.