,
3 tweets,
1 min read
Read on Twitter
This reveals much about Chuck’s thinking, and it’s troubling. He sees the coverage of whether a person was attacked in a bias-motivated crime as “rooting for” an “outcome,” as opposed to being a reaction of concern about the way biases play out and can turn into violence.
There are lots of issues with the Smollett coverage, but it’s not that people were “rooting for” an outcome. Rallying behind a person who claims to have been victimized can be difficult for journalists to do fairly (as we have seen), but it’s not “rooting for” an outcome.
This proves my point and is just sad. Chuck thinks that me sending out the initial police statement, noting it is an allegation, and saying “it appears” somehow proves his point because my reaction to reading that was that it was awful. I really don’t know how to deal with that. 
