Iowa reporter who exposed racist tweets fired for own tweets | Hacker News Reader

Iowa reporter who exposed racist tweets fired for own tweets

bbc.com

31 pointsapsec11237 comments

This is exactly why people call a lot of “news” fake news. That news outlet was not doing journalism but rather a smear piece for the purpose of views. The guy was 16. Everyone would be fired if they dug up everyone that was done in their teens years and accountable for it today.

This is news outlet abusively used their power without caring for the consequences of what it would to this man.

I’m getting really tired of this shaming. I oppose gay marriage, I oppose abortion, and while they’re are racists, I don’t believe their is institutional fascism taking place based upon the color of skin.

...but that is what makes our country great. We can have different view points. We can have discussions. When we take away those we begin to turn into a society similar to China where it’s not acceptable to have differing views and certainly not discussion.

We get the news that sells. Otherwise, everyone should have their own staff of investiative reporters. It is simply cause-and-effect from the established conditions.

What this shows is that "cancel culture" is utterly toxic, and cuts both ways. You don't get to dehumanize people without reprecussions to your own status anymore. News media should reflect on their role and function in society once more too, as the focus on "dirt" just ends us all up in the same swamp inevitably.

The simple truth is, according to ethnicity and color of skin, the availability of opportunities are vastly different. That is institutional and cultural, that is now being adressed. One can choose to shut their eyes, ears and mind, or reach out a hand and try to understand the underlying issues and how other people think and feel about it below the hurt.

I don’t disagree with you on the last point. However, I believe a lot of it is cultural and environment rather than color of skin.

To give a completely honest example.. Some one speaking British English will likely sound more educated than some one speaking Ebonics. This perception caries over to areas such as business. A person with the perception of being “educated” will likely have higher sales numbers compared to the latter.

Home life is critical. Asians for example as part of the culture place a very high standard on education (in general - based upon my own life knowledge) while other culture do not.

Those were just some points. I do believe there is an issue, but I heavily disagree that their is systemic racism due to skin color that is stopping those that are black (for example) from achieving greater financial success.

Feel free to disagree :) The problem is the same, wether it's technically due to skin color or not though. Try migrating to another country, it's not easy to integrate, and can be very hit'n miss for anybody.

It's much the same problems, and in need to be solving as to get more equal participation in society. There's also degrees, and no secret that discrimination/favourism is systematic in many countries simply due to tone of skin.

It needs extra effort, or remain systematic and institutional. Marginalization simply cannot be afforded.

I don't think people should adapt to me if I emigrate to another country. I wouldn't want to be a problem case either.

What we need is the same rules applying to everyone. For all skin colors. There is a huge barrier to get access to the judicial system because of very high lawyer fees. These are real problems, not the distribution of skin shades for certain occupation. On the contrary, that is pretty racist.

I don't believe in systematic racism. I believe we are in a bad situation where people have economic incentives to keep it alive, as perverse as this sounds.

Unequal treatment before the law cannot be afforded.

This should also make us wonder if the news about China, Russia, India, and Saudi Arabia are smear pieces too.

You need to read the journalist's own account as to how this all blew up. He provides a lot more context and nuance as to who tweeted what and when, but basically screwed up and should have checked his own online history as well.

https://www.cjr.org/first_person/aaron-calvin-viral-story-tw...

He should have "checked his online history" and realized that maybe he didn't need to write about another person's online history. I don't see him looking any better here -- he casually lobbed a rock at another man and then got all whiny about "editorial integrity" when the rock got thrown at him.

Perception is everything. Doesn't really matter if you said or did a particular thing - if people think you did then no amount of explanation will fix that. He can say that he was just mentioning it as an aside of the story, but that's not how it was perceived.

He should have dropped it after the guy apologies and deleted them, and I could believe his hands were tied and it was an editorial decision to include it, but having your own credibility in order, no matter how insignificant you may think you are is imperative before you put your name to something that you're hoping blows up.

"Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect…"

The "just mentioning it as an aside" doesn't really hold even a drop of water given the well-known implications of racism allegations. It's like spending a few hours covering someone's car in silly string (Very annoying, but not sociopathic) and then quickly cutting their brake lines as "an aside."

I agree with you completely, he was outing the guy whichever way he tries to spin his motives. Should have done him the favour of pointing it out and left it at that.

Excerpts from the journalist's piece I think are worth quoting:

> "The specter of “cancel culture” is a concept most often invoked to protect those in power, often straight white men such as myself, from facing consequences for their actions, but I want no part in it. I’m not going to start a YouTube channel railing against the perceived dangers of PC culture. I believe I lost my job unfairly. At the same time, I firmly believe that people, especially those in power, should be held accountable for what they say and do."

> "There was no union at the Register. Had I been a union member, I believe I would have been able to more effectively advocate for myself."

These two paragraphs are almost a contradiction (saying "I’m not going to start a YouTube channel" but writing a blogpost railing against ununionised workers not being able to advocate for themselves), but it isn't quite a contradiction, and that nuance is exactly where I think the "line" is in this debate.

People's lives are ruined not because there's no authoritarian protection of "free" hate-speech, but rather because there's no individual-level protection of actual livelihoods.

Disagree. If we had a more enlightened culture, people wouldn't connect statements from individuals to companies they work for in the first place but that is not relevant.

What this shows to me is that he has a clear image of an enemy. An image so hated that he didn't use his conscience while writing the article he got fired for. This is real prejudice and he hasn't worked through that. Otherwise he would not rail against those critical of cancel culture.

Protecting people against twitter hysteria is not the work of unions.

Additionally, free speech is very valuable and freedom doesn't come without costs.

I do think he was fired unfairly, it would be nice if he could extend his judgement about himself to others.

This is what that reporter wrote about the tweets. It is 10% of the article that was published by word count and appeared in the middle of the article, not the end as the reporter claims. I'll leave it to people to draw their own conclusions:

A routine background check of King's social media revealed two racist jokes, one comparing black mothers to gorillas and another making light of black people killed in the holocaust. The joke tweets date back to 2012, when King was a 16-year-old high school student.

When asked about the tweets, King was remorseful and thanked the Register for pointing them out, saying they made him "sick." He has since deleted them.

"That’s not something that I’m proud of at all," he told the Register during the day Tuesday.

Tuesday evening, King spoke to local television stations about the now-deleted tweets.

"I am embarrassed and stunned to reflect on what I thought was funny when I was 16-year-old," he said in a statement posted by WHO-TV. "I want to sincerely apologize."

He also read the statement in a video posted by KCCI-TV.

Anheuser-Busch InBev, Busch Light's parent company, announced in a statement Tuesday night that they will "have no further association with [King]," though they will honor their agreement to match the funds for the children's hospital.

That’s very compelling and sad.

It's pretty funny that a lot of these cases of 'cancel culture' aren't the mob ("Twitter, do your thing") but journalists going after regular people. As it turns out it's far easier to expose someone without power.

We're a pretty perverse society that random acts of harassment is being viewed with the television lens of "cancellation". That is a risk with the social medium.

Another irony of the situation is that, with the primary center being Twitter, the transgressions have to be minor. Accounts that break the rules (i.e. are racist) are routinely and correctly banned and as such have all their transgressions erased.

'Cancel Culture' is generally not 'a mob' - it's usually journos or individuals leveraging or hyping up a little bit of a mob.

A Board is not going to dump a CEO because of just some angry people on Twitter, it's the pressure exerted by amplified voices, particularly those in the press. Once a fire starts, a lot of other writer tend to to pile on.

If everything were just on Twitter, nobody would care. It's the 'newsification' of Twitter that creates the problem.

The Board cannot ignore CNN, WaPo and all the ruffling they casuse.

I dont think it should be called "Cancel Culture", its more of "Burn Culture"...

One little mistake and everyone wants to burn you at the stake like a witch in the old days.

No matter that he made some stupid ill-informed posts back when he was 16 and not a fully developed adult with little real world experience. BURN HIM!!

Come on Internet... we need to be able to have civil discussions and a chance for people to redeem themselves.

"It said that while in high school eight years earlier, Mr King had tweeted two racist jokes about black people."

This insanity needs to end.

Just as I will have a talk with my son about how to interact with the police (the same one my dad had with me), I'll be sitting both my kids down at the right time to explain to them that they need to do the essential process of exploring transgressions/norms in a manner that does not stay with them for the rest of their lives, even though they live in a world where most communication is over recorded channels. I said 10x worse things growing up, but none of it got written down -- they'll need to understand pseudonyms, awareness of whether they're being video or audio recorded, etc.

Yes, hopefully it will become so abhorrent that it will be obvious even to teenagers that race “jokes” aren’t acceptable.

"But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning He returned to the temple. All the people came to Him, and He sat down and taught them. The scribes and Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery. When they had put her in the middle, they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of adultery. Now Moses in the law commanded us to stone such, but what do You say?” They said this, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him.

But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear them. So when they continued asking Him, He stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” Again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.

Being convicted by their conscience, those who heard it went out one by one, beginning with the eldest even to the last. Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had stood up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are your accusers? Did no one condemn you?”

She said, “No one, Lord.”

Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more.”"

Contextually, that’s nonsense.

I'm not religious but it makes sense to me:

"Don't condemn other people for making the mistake of saying racist things in their past if you have said racist things in YOUR past yourself"

It's very logical.

"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."

He was 16. I'm sure I could find a picture of you as a kid covered in mud. (Blackface!!! Stone him!!! )

Given time you can find something offensive about everyone. Its become a convenient way to eliminate competitors, jealous retaliation, or attempt to signal your great virtue.

The mob will burn anyone they just need an excuse.

How would you feel if you lost your job because of something you said years ago was deemed offensive? Doesn’t have to be about race, political wrongthink is enough to be cancelled. When I was at school in the 90s, I said things that are unacceptable by today’s standards. I wouldn’t say those things today as times have changed

(2019)

The leaders of "cancel culture" are usually destined to become a Danton, Hebert, or Robespierre.

The difference is of degree, not kind.

To put another way, if the leaders of a modern mob had the power to execute their targets the way Danton or Robespierre did, who is confident that they would not let the guillotine blade fall?

I agree, but I was more talking about how those who would become self-styled enforcers of ideological purity tests often find themselves sufficiently impure and lose their heads the same way they took them.

No sympathy. Cancel culture was all fine and good when it was used on people the progressive left didn't like, but when now it's applied to themselves? OMG its gone too far! I hope they enjoy the world they made.

We really need a law or rule that protects people from this stuff. If you can't 'go to adult jail' when you're 16, you shouldn't go to 'twitter jail' either.

Moreover - more subtly and more importantly - most teens in 2020 have absolutely no context for racism, 'spouse abuse' and these things (many do, but most don't).

Teens say crazy, crazy things. They'll compare a lot of things to Gorillas, including, sadly 'Black people' - of course it's not right, but there is a context of 'extreme locker room talk' and they'll just say anything. I don't think they mean any of it, it's like someone making a joke about 'The English' - it's not meant to be hateful or offensive, it's just excessive joking around.

It's only when you're an adult, when you see that 'some things are real' does it take another context then all of a sudden words really become a problem.

For example - if this joke were not 'written down on record' - nobody, I mean nobody would care a single bit that he 'said something when he was 16' even if we knew for sure he said it. That it is 'on the record' is effectively what makes it 'situationally toxic' wherein brands have no choice but to back off, and HR teams hands are 'forced' into action.

Twitter should also have a policy on this.

> If you can't 'go to adult jail' when you're 16

You absolutely can go to adult jail at 16.

Yes, if you're a stone cold killer, but otherwise, we have a separate set of rules for minors.

You don't have to be a “stone cold killer”, in fact, the vast majority of juveniles transferred to criminal instead of juvenile court are for nonviolent offenses.

It would be more accurate (though still very incompletely so) to say “if you're black”.

Edit: I edited this comment to reflect the 'vast majority of cases transferred to adult court are for non-violent offences' - not - 'the vast majority of juvenile cases are waived to adult court' which was my original interpretation.

Only about 1/2 of Juvenile cases are even processed, and a tiny amount, about 0.6% go to adult court. [1]

And if by 'vast majority of cases are for non-violent offences' you mean to say about 1/2 - then that's about right. (About 1/2 of the cases that are waived to adult court involve 'crimes against the person', the other 1/2 are property theft, drugs, public disorder).

That some are for violent offences, some are for other types of crimes is relevant, but less so in the context that very few cases go to adult court.

As for race: Black people are more likely to be waived to 'adult court' but it's mostly a function of the fact they are significantly more likely to be involved in physical crimes against the person, i.e. assault. Though they are overrepresented in all crimes. - for drugs and theft, they are less overrepresented, and White kids, for example are relatively more likely to go to 'adult court' for such crimes (i.e. drugs and theft) given the case rate. Because of the seriousness of violent crimes, which are inherently more likely to be referred to adult court, and the significant overrepresentation of Black kids in that category - more of them in are referred to adult court in relative terms. But the differential between races is small, and, the overall share of cases waived to adult court is quite small.

Again: we have completely different systems for adults and juveniles.

[1] https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/njcda/pdf/jcs2016.pdf

Reply on news.ycombinator.com