Time to cut out our Busch Light love affair

[Doc]

Some kind of formal acknowledgement about their poor judgement to report his tweets from 8 years ago that had absolutely no relevance to Carson's story. They already were trying to play the victim blame card Tuesday night when they got all the backlash, for their own sake to do some damage control and rebuild their reputation they need to own up to their mistake and not try to spin it or defend it and show they have taken appropriate measures and lay out something to show they are going to put something in place so a PR nightmare like this doesn't happen again. Show some accountability basically. They surely lost a ton of subscribers, advertisers, and social media following from this and by staying silent on this since their lame explanation and statement Tuesday night is not helping their PR issue.

And I will go as far to say that both the editor and reporter who ran this story should be fired. Most of us would probably be fired from our job if we caused national embarrassment and financial losses to our employer like they have done and just because they are members of the media doesn't mean they should be held to different standards. They took what was a great story and basically pissed on it by digging up and publishing his old tweets. Carson was not doing this to keep the money for himself or get national media attention. He had no idea what was about to happen when he made that sign, he just wanted a case of beer and now he's probably going to raise and donate in less than a month's time around $2 million dollars for a children's hospital. That's the story not something stupid he tweeted as a 16 year kid 8 years ago. The DMR could have pulled 100 people off the street that knew about Carson's story and asked them what they thought about if they were to publish those tweets as part of a profile story and I bet you every single one of them would have told them they would be stupid to do so.

Yeah, I agree that their editorial group made the wrong choice to include that stuff in the profile. I was one of the first posters on here to react with anger with I saw he was apologizing for old social media. It hurt a really nice feel good story. I really think A-B made the far worse choice. I don’t really give a **** about the Register, and I’m not a journalist, but I think these choices are difficult. I think there will be repercussions for people at the Register, but it may be difficult for them to figure out who all ****** up. To include it was an editorial board decision, the reasons for why they hired that reporter despite his Twitter history are unknown and are another. I don’t blame the reporter for checking his twitter, and I don’t blame him for checking his twitter from when he was a minor. I see the hypocrisy with the reporter past, but what can they do in two days depending on what their policy was at time of hiring.

Busch is the one that really did the “cancel culture” damage. They should have nutted up and stuck with their guy.

 

[alarson]

I'm also absolutely not saying that we shouldn't dig into a politician's background, but I am just more mindful of what their more current actions are like so in essence take it with a grain of salt until the spots start to rear their ugly head again.

Sometimes, particularly with someone in politics, they just get better at hiding their dark side. In those cases, a suspicion of who they are in the present may be confirmed by looking into their past.

 

[Doc]

I don’t think there are many people who think less of Carson for what he did. Admittedly I can immediately think of two liberal friends who would be offended, but they understand people change.

I also think it’s okay to expect more of teenagers. If you have haven’t noticed there are a lot of man-children running around out there (no comment on myself) freaking out at little league games and the like. The world gets more complicated by the day, and we have to figure out if we delay what we consider the start of adulthood to give more time for people to develop and function in the real world. I think people want to label and attack things like “cancel culture” simply because even though they are adults, they don’t want to make the effort to learn and understand.

 

[Doc]

And part of being an adult is doing things you don’t want to do, and that happened to Carson and he handled it like a champ. Sometimes the libs are going to do you dirty , but people with courage don’t have to care about reputation.

 

[Nader_uggghhh]

Something worth mentioning: Carson's tweets were never screenshot and published. We only have a pretty vague description of the context. What's ironic is that the same jokes that he tweeted were socially acceptable enough for a white person to broadcast on a major television network, right or wrong.

The other funny thing to me is that AB is donating over $500,000 and still dealing with bad publicity. I'm curious if the Register ever told Carson or AB that they were running with their aside regardless.

 

[FOREVERTRUE]

Sometimes, particularly with someone in politics, they just get better at hiding their dark side. In those cases, a suspicion of who they are in the present may be confirmed by looking into their past.

I don't disagree with you, but I do feel everyone deserves a second chance when whatever indiscretion happened a long time ago, but if they are on a much shorter leash after the fact.

 

[Sigmapolis]

Sometimes, particularly with someone in politics, they just get better at hiding their dark side. In those cases, a suspicion of who they are in the present may be confirmed by looking into their past.

Sometimes.

Obama admitted to drug use -- marijuana and cocaine -- in high school.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/BothSidesAllSides/story?id=2773754&page=1

I bet you would find attempts to brand him now, and probably did during his campaigns in 2008 and 2012, as a deadbeat druggie, as at least out-of-date if not outright offensive.

People can change a lot, especially when they are young.

One must be careful about motivated reasoning.

 

[Rods79]

What do you want them to apologize for? Being journalists and all, they shouldn’t have to apologize for digging through the kids social media. I think they showed poor judgment when they decided to include it in the profile, but then informing Carson of it so he could get out in front of it and look good doing so was good.

And you can’t really expect them to immediately discipline or fire that reporter over his old tweets.

EL-OH-EL. Just a heads up, time to Calvin this post. (That advice is the same courtesy the dirt digger should have given the subject after speaking with him). Are there no journalistic ethics? Is this not a class?

 

[Doc]

EL-OH-EL. Just a heads up, time to Calvin this post. (That advice is the same courtesy the dirt digger should have given the subject after speaking with him). Are there no journalistic ethics? Is this not a class?

i honestly don’t really know. I don’t know much about journalism. What’s the ethical principle that prevents them from checking a tweet from a sixteen year old?

looking at the google...pandering to lurid curiosity? Not balancing the public’s right to know with unnecessarily causing harm correctly?

 

[ArgentCy]

You are probably not opted in to the political forums. I would say don't if that's the case, but if you are, you can see why certain posters appear to be defending the journalisming that was done by the Register. Cancel culture has become a strong political tool used very extensively by a certain side, and they want to keep said tool. That is all.

It's present (everywhere including here).

 

[ArgentCy]

It’s still different. This kid isn’t trying spend my tax dollars and make laws that affect me and my family. We didn’t need to see Carson Kings past. We definitely need to see politicians pasts because it can absolutely be life or death for some people.

The only difference is that this is raising money for sick kids and not the person. No one is going to be mad at someone who raised $1 million dollars for sick kids. This was the Rag's complete failure.

 

[Doc]

EL-OH-EL. Just a heads up, time to Calvin this post. (That advice is the same courtesy the dirt digger should have given the subject after speaking with him). Are there no journalistic ethics? Is this not a class?

And I’m not sure what Calvin means, but I assume it means delete...so the reporter should have quietly told Carson to hide the tweets so we could just blue pill away? How bad does a tweet from a 16-year old have to get for it to become important in a profile and who decides that? Can they quote Tosh’s rape jokes? Are they supposed to ignore publicly available media when doing a profile? I have said a couple times that I thought the Rag showed bad judgment in including those tweets in the story given the context, but what I’m seeing is an inordinate amount of anger about it from people in this thread.

There is just so much shade thrown towards the media in general these days, I’m legitimately curious what journalistic standard(s) the Register ignored. I’m willing to admit I’m wrong here, especially since I’m in an extreme minority, but I want somebody to explain to me what they did that’s so wrong.

 

[Doc]

I hope everyone keeps this situation in mind the next time that offensive tweets from the past are brought into the mainstream. Yes, even from your political or ideological opponents.

I think we all need to be more patient, kind, and understanding of errors people have made in the past. Don’t blame it all on the messenger — I like to know things. If I ever run into Carson I’ll buy him a beer for his good deed and another for having to make his statement.

 

[dirtyninety]

This whole thread has turned into a Michael Phelps counseling commercial.

 

[CYdTracked]

Not going to link to the article to the DMR as I don't want to give them any more clicks than necessary but anyone interested can go to their website and see that chief editor Carol Hunter has a piece out "We hear You. You're angry. He's what we're doing about it." It's something finally but too little too late and still leaves a lot to be desired IMO. No apology or show of any kind of remorse for running the dirty piece on Carson. Does say that they have fired the reporter and claim that they were unaware of his past social media posts prior to this and going forward will screen all employees social media better. I don't see anything where she is taking responsibility for running it and owning the backlash it created. She also used the word "hundreds" instead of the obvious thousands of people they heard from.

Sorry Carol, the damage has been done and this at best was a lame way for you to "newsplain" the decision to run the story without owning up to the mistake or apologizing for the mess you made. Personally I think she deserves to be fired too as she could have made the decision not to run that part of the profile story and prevented the situation and damage her newspaper has now suffered. As I mentioned earlier today, how many of us would not be fired if a decision we made at work resulted in bad publicity nationally that damaged the company's reputation and also caused financial losses on top of it by losing customers and advertisers? I would guess most people here would answer they think they probably would be fired if they messed up that bad at their job.

 

[Knownothing]

So they fires the Aaron kid. I just want to see the look on his face when the next job interview they tell him he has a job but we have to do a background check first.

 

[BCClone]

Not going to link to the article to the DMR as I don't want to give them any more clicks than necessary but anyone interested can go to their website and see that chief editor Carol Hunter has a piece out "We hear You. You're angry. He's what we're doing about it." It's something finally but too little too late and still leaves a lot to be desired IMO. No apology or show of any kind of remorse for running the dirty piece on Carson. Does say that they have fired the reporter and claim that they were unaware of his past social media posts prior to this and going forward will screen all employees social media better. I don't see anything where she is taking responsibility for running it and owning the backlash it created. She also used the word "hundreds" instead of the obvious thousands of people they heard from.

Sorry Carol, the damage has been done and this at best was a lame way for you to "newsplain" the decision to run the story without owning up to the mistake or apologizing for the mess you made. Personally I think she deserves to be fired too as she could have made the decision not to run that part of the profile story and prevented the situation and damage her newspaper has now suffered. As I mentioned earlier today, how many of us would not be fired if a decision we made at work resulted in bad publicity nationally that damaged the company's reputation and also caused financial losses on top of it by losing customers and advertisers? I would guess most people here would answer they think they probably would be fired if they messed up that bad at their job.

Don’t think it damaged their rep. When your rep is crap there isn’t much place to go down.

 

[cycfan1]

Not going to link to the article to the DMR as I don't want to give them any more clicks than necessary but anyone interested can go to their website and see that chief editor Carol Hunter has a piece out "We hear You. You're angry. He's what we're doing about it." It's something finally but too little too late and still leaves a lot to be desired IMO. No apology or show of any kind of remorse for running the dirty piece on Carson. Does say that they have fired the reporter and claim that they were unaware of his past social media posts prior to this and going forward will screen all employees social media better. I don't see anything where she is taking responsibility for running it and owning the backlash it created. She also used the word "hundreds" instead of the obvious thousands of people they heard from.

Sorry Carol, the damage has been done and this at best was a lame way for you to "newsplain" the decision to run the story without owning up to the mistake or apologizing for the mess you made. Personally I think she deserves to be fired too as she could have made the decision not to run that part of the profile story and prevented the situation and damage her newspaper has now suffered. As I mentioned earlier today, how many of us would not be fired if a decision we made at work resulted in bad publicity nationally that damaged the company's reputation and also caused financial losses on top of it by losing customers and advertisers? I would guess most people here would answer they think they probably would be fired if they messed up that bad at their job.

What a garbage apology. Almost saying they had to publish it after the press conference, while beating around the bush that their reporter caused the press conference.

They really could have used a donation of their own in all of this too. Not sure that would have helped but wouldn’t be horrible PR

 

[CysRage]

Not going to link to the article to the DMR as I don't want to give them any more clicks than necessary but anyone interested can go to their website and see that chief editor Carol Hunter has a piece out "We hear You. You're angry. He's what we're doing about it." It's something finally but too little too late and still leaves a lot to be desired IMO. No apology or show of any kind of remorse for running the dirty piece on Carson. Does say that they have fired the reporter and claim that they were unaware of his past social media posts prior to this and going forward will screen all employees social media better. I don't see anything where she is taking responsibility for running it and owning the backlash it created. She also used the word "hundreds" instead of the obvious thousands of people they heard from.

Sorry Carol, the damage has been done and this at best was a lame way for you to "newsplain" the decision to run the story without owning up to the mistake or apologizing for the mess you made. Personally I think she deserves to be fired too as she could have made the decision not to run that part of the profile story and prevented the situation and damage her newspaper has now suffered. As I mentioned earlier today, how many of us would not be fired if a decision we made at work resulted in bad publicity nationally that damaged the company's reputation and also caused financial losses on top of it by losing customers and advertisers? I would guess most people here would answer they think they probably would be fired if they messed up that bad at their job.

Thanks for paraphrasing. I saw they tweeted something but I didn't want to give the link my click. I assumed that the reporter was going to be the scapegoat in all of this. I sort of wish the reporter didn't have Twitter baggage he had so we could have gotten real ownership from The Rag rather than place the blame on a guy who probably made $25,000 per year. The reporter was a hypocrite but to put the blame all on him when it went through layers of editors (including Carol Hunter at the very top) is asinine. They somehow found a way to make this worse than it already is.

 

[Urbandale2013]

Not going to link to the article to the DMR as I don't want to give them any more clicks than necessary but anyone interested can go to their website and see that chief editor Carol Hunter has a piece out "We hear You. You're angry. He's what we're doing about it." It's something finally but too little too late and still leaves a lot to be desired IMO. No apology or show of any kind of remorse for running the dirty piece on Carson. Does say that they have fired the reporter and claim that they were unaware of his past social media posts prior to this and going forward will screen all employees social media better. I don't see anything where she is taking responsibility for running it and owning the backlash it created. She also used the word "hundreds" instead of the obvious thousands of people they heard from.

Sorry Carol, the damage has been done and this at best was a lame way for you to "newsplain" the decision to run the story without owning up to the mistake or apologizing for the mess you made. Personally I think she deserves to be fired too as she could have made the decision not to run that part of the profile story and prevented the situation and damage her newspaper has now suffered. As I mentioned earlier today, how many of us would not be fired if a decision we made at work resulted in bad publicity nationally that damaged the company's reputation and also caused financial losses on top of it by losing customers and advertisers? I would guess most people here would answer they think they probably would be fired if they messed up that bad at their job.

Not going to read it and give them the clicks but she is more of the problem IMO. The reporter shouldn’t have been fired for his tweets. He should have been fired for his inability to accurately deduce what was newsworthy. She should lose her job for allowing it to happen.