This was fun, thanks. To be fair, though, I would expect the "debunking" journalists to contact Rachel Richardson and ask whether she can explain how nobody else seems to have experienced what she reported, or whether perhaps she'd like to revise her story.
This was fun, thanks. To be fair, though, I would expect the "debunking" journalists to contact Rachel Richardson and ask whether she can explain how nobody else seems to have experienced what she reported, or whether perhaps she'd like to revise her story.
ThatтАЩs what I want to know! What does she have to say for herself now? What do her teammates have to say? This is dangerous business, lying about stuff like this. Half the country believes the other half is racist because of shit like this.
BYU reviewed every scrap of video and audio footage of the game that they could get their hands on. One thing particularly of note that they discovered was that the disabled young man the player specifically accused was not speaking at all during the serves when she said she heard slurs being yelled.
And yet the Duke player made her accusation. The essay here is about the proper conduct of journalism and I believe the author would agree that what's required is not simply that the journalist is convinced he has the truth of the matter, but that all the relevant parties have been heard from and the relevant angles examined. It's hard to imagine the kind of editor the author lauds not asking this reporter "Well, have you spoken with the Duke player?"
This isn't a court proceeding and I'm not grasping at anything. My preferred outcome is that BYU is cleared, but precisely for that reason, and because when I read a news story I don't like to come away with obvious questions that the reporter should have asked, someone should have gone back to her with this evidence and asked her to explain it.
Ah... But while that would be necessary for a thorough accounting, it's not necessary to write a thorough article. BYU *WAS* cleared, in almost *everybody's* eyes who read this story.
So I guess I'm not sure what You're grasping for. I would suggest comparing M. Singal's story to the so-called update from the NYT. No comparison, so I don't have much room to criticize the former, myself. YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary).
No mystery here. When I read a story like this, the first question that comes to mind is "How can the Duke folks explain away the video evidence?" The kind of editor that Mr. Singal lauds in his essay would, I think, insist on at least an attempt to answer that question. And since BYU and Duke are not the subjects of the essay, the subject being the rise of advocacy in journalism at the expense of professionalism, I consider it a flaw that that point wasn't raised.
I'm not sure what definition of "grasping" that fits.
Weeeel, perhaps grasping isn't the best word. But I would say that You're grasping/asking for the author to suit Your *particular* preferences, where most others have been plenty satisfied.
You canтАЩt question it because it is тАЬher truthтАЭ, even if it is not BYUтАЩs truth or (for the systemic racist transphobes out there) the actual truth.
And thatтАЩs exactly where the bakery example went. Listening to an Oberlin college student explain how it didnтАЩt matter if the bakery committed racism, all that mattered was now the perception that they didтАж. That now it was essentially more about virtue signaling than finding the truth and the family receiving justice for the harm done to them. I donтАЩt have words for that, only a nearly uncontrollable urge to vomit.
Please call me Michael. And if I may: Parodies like that, while they capture certain truths, don't further the conversation. That's not criticism, just advice.
Ironically, you posted and thereby furthered the conversation.
I appreciate that and your response is reasonable. But my moment of glib indulgence serves the purpose of the court jester. This rhetoric must be robbed of its power, and to do so I use the rhetoric to highlight its own absurdity.
Plenty of people here have seen the unironic version of my comment on Twitter. The comment is for them.
I'm not asking about those journalists who might actually buy that. I'm asking about the ones touted as the "good" journalists. Did ЁЭШБЁЭЧ╡ЁЭЧ▓ЁЭШЖ contact her?
So true. They should release all the video and interviews they collected to the public. There are many who believe the fix was in from the start. But in this day and age where Twitter and TikTok reign supreme, the absence of any corroborating evidence on these platforms doesnтАЩt bode well for Duke.
Absolutely they should stand up for who they are and what they teach. They should release all of it and dare the media to either look at it or dispute it, which you can't do without looking at it.
If people/entities don't start fighting back, everyone loses, including people like Rachel Richardson.
This was fun, thanks. To be fair, though, I would expect the "debunking" journalists to contact Rachel Richardson and ask whether she can explain how nobody else seems to have experienced what she reported, or whether perhaps she'd like to revise her story.
ThatтАЩs what I want to know! What does she have to say for herself now? What do her teammates have to say? This is dangerous business, lying about stuff like this. Half the country believes the other half is racist because of shit like this.
I'm open to the possibility that she's in the right, which is why I'm asking the extent to which that was investigated.
BYU reviewed every scrap of video and audio footage of the game that they could get their hands on. One thing particularly of note that they discovered was that the disabled young man the player specifically accused was not speaking at all during the serves when she said she heard slurs being yelled.
Correct, he was scrolling through his phone!
And yet the Duke player made her accusation. The essay here is about the proper conduct of journalism and I believe the author would agree that what's required is not simply that the journalist is convinced he has the truth of the matter, but that all the relevant parties have been heard from and the relevant angles examined. It's hard to imagine the kind of editor the author lauds not asking this reporter "Well, have you spoken with the Duke player?"
I'm sorry, but the Duke player *had* her say. I think You're grasping at straws.
This isn't a court proceeding and I'm not grasping at anything. My preferred outcome is that BYU is cleared, but precisely for that reason, and because when I read a news story I don't like to come away with obvious questions that the reporter should have asked, someone should have gone back to her with this evidence and asked her to explain it.
Ah... But while that would be necessary for a thorough accounting, it's not necessary to write a thorough article. BYU *WAS* cleared, in almost *everybody's* eyes who read this story.
So I guess I'm not sure what You're grasping for. I would suggest comparing M. Singal's story to the so-called update from the NYT. No comparison, so I don't have much room to criticize the former, myself. YMMV (Your Mileage May Vary).
No mystery here. When I read a story like this, the first question that comes to mind is "How can the Duke folks explain away the video evidence?" The kind of editor that Mr. Singal lauds in his essay would, I think, insist on at least an attempt to answer that question. And since BYU and Duke are not the subjects of the essay, the subject being the rise of advocacy in journalism at the expense of professionalism, I consider it a flaw that that point wasn't raised.
I'm not sure what definition of "grasping" that fits.
Weeeel, perhaps grasping isn't the best word. But I would say that You're grasping/asking for the author to suit Your *particular* preferences, where most others have been plenty satisfied.
I suggest you as Mr. Singal whether he considers it a "preference" or a basic practice of good journalism.
You canтАЩt question it because it is тАЬher truthтАЭ, even if it is not BYUтАЩs truth or (for the systemic racist transphobes out there) the actual truth.
And thatтАЩs exactly where the bakery example went. Listening to an Oberlin college student explain how it didnтАЩt matter if the bakery committed racism, all that mattered was now the perception that they didтАж. That now it was essentially more about virtue signaling than finding the truth and the family receiving justice for the harm done to them. I donтАЩt have words for that, only a nearly uncontrollable urge to vomit.
Exact same thing they said about George Floyd.
Omg did Mr. Berkowitz suggest that it's acceptable for good people to question the lived experience of a woman of color??
How is he not banned? Where are the content moderators, my god!
Please call me Michael. And if I may: Parodies like that, while they capture certain truths, don't further the conversation. That's not criticism, just advice.
Ironically, you posted and thereby furthered the conversation.
I appreciate that and your response is reasonable. But my moment of glib indulgence serves the purpose of the court jester. This rhetoric must be robbed of its power, and to do so I use the rhetoric to highlight its own absurdity.
Plenty of people here have seen the unironic version of my comment on Twitter. The comment is for them.
I'm not asking about those journalists who might actually buy that. I'm asking about the ones touted as the "good" journalists. Did ЁЭШБЁЭЧ╡ЁЭЧ▓ЁЭШЖ contact her?
As far as I call tell, everyone is sure that BYU is lying about its investigation into the incident.
Particularly in the context of this essay, I think that "everyone is sure" shouldn't affect anyone's opinion.
Revise "everyone is sure" to "those with discernment and wisdom can see"
ЁЯШБ
So true. They should release all the video and interviews they collected to the public. There are many who believe the fix was in from the start. But in this day and age where Twitter and TikTok reign supreme, the absence of any corroborating evidence on these platforms doesnтАЩt bode well for Duke.
Absolutely they should stand up for who they are and what they teach. They should release all of it and dare the media to either look at it or dispute it, which you can't do without looking at it.
If people/entities don't start fighting back, everyone loses, including people like Rachel Richardson.
Duke has had a problem with athletes and lies told about them but I guess they didnтАЩt learn anything from that experience.