,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Firing the reporter is not the action to take. Your original statement says “Register editors decided to include them [Tweets].” It’s easier to hold responsible only the reporter, but it isn’t about the singular reporter, it’s about a media culture in which this tactic persists.
Because looking back a decade and judging adults by their teenage social media footprint is commonplace now, I wouldn’t be surprised if younger journos think it’s acceptable practice. You sanctioned it and then fired him.
You had a real opportunity @DMRegister to make a statement about this cancel-culture environment and honestly, it feels like you simply hung the reporter out to dry for editorial decisions your higher ups admitted they made in a previous statement.
@DMRegister Yes, the reporter was guilty of what he accused King and lots of people (myself included) were angry, but hold up here, just hold up — must the answer always be to cancel all the things? This would have been a great lesson on reconciliation and ethics in media.
Honestly, what is the point of demanding apologies from people when we know damn good and well that when the mob shows up they aren’t there to dispense cultural redemption, the visit is only about destruction.
I don’t even like this guy and now the Register has me defending him for the sole reason that they found it a more expedient PR move to continue the cancel culture and scapegoat him for the decisions the editors admitted they made. No one learned a single thing.
No one changes anything going into this thinking they can out-cancel cancel culture. No one will ever learn any lessons if people won’t give others a chance to redeem themselves. Only way this stops. Goodnight.
