Thread by @AlexandraErin

NYT:

"President Skating On Pretty Thin Ice, Buster.

In a series of racially infused tweets, President Trump verged close to making us count to three, or so help us.

Some said the tweets 'were [messing with the bull]' and called on the GOP to '[give] the remarks [the horns].'"

I know it takes a village to frame an article, but there are many cases where of Legal and Editorial and the big bosses won't let you say what you're trying to say... you should scrap it and take a different tack. Your preferred message watered down is worse than your second pick

If they won't let you say "racist", they can't make you fall on ridiculous euphemisms that make a powerful white nationalist sound like a neighborhood scamp.

If you are going to quote critics and experts who will say something is racist... if that is as far as you are allowed to go... don't take away from that with a bunch of diluted editorializing that makes it sound both more complicated and also less serious.

If they won't let a straight reporting article say something is racist outside of citing someone else saying it is... sure, do that. But then don't editorialize that it is "racially tinged", either.

Those convoluted ”playing with fire"/"fires back" headers are the end result of someone trying to frame a message in a way they think will pass muster. But in the process of doing that, they wind up losing the message.