Thread by @HNIJohnMiller

"We’ve long held that anyone who becomes a news story, willingly or unwillingly, gives us license to examine and publish the details of their life. The death of Brooks caused us to question the ethical limits of that license." But not the conservatives that journos regularly hit.

https://twitter.com/brithume/status/1276141129327575041

Their defense of not covering his abuse of his children: 'it wasn't real child abuse.'

I'm not kidding.

"Brooks was accused of grabbing Miller’s wrist (battery), pulling her into another room (false imprisonment) and doing so in front of her 7-year-old son (child cruelty)."

Go fuck yourself @ajc you fucking hacks. You don't have journalistic integrity. You rigged your own rules to give yourselves a false moral high ground, and then the minute they weren't convenient for you, you threw them out with full knowledge of the damage you would cause.

"The argument may have been ugly, and Brooks’ behavior may have been bad, but he wasn’t accused of actually hitting anyone or holding them captive."

This is how you defend your editorial decisions? Are you fucking kidding me?

"Much of what we learned about Brooks shows a black man caught up in the justice system, including Georgia’s notoriously flawed parole system."

Flawed? He was out on probation for child abuse despite having a prior existing record. What's your complaint about the parole system?

"Questions remain from the details of Brooks’ death, including why he resisted arrest, punched the arresting officer, and ran. And why the arresting officer shot him."

Well, Brooks shooting the other officer with a taser he stole from them certainly clears things up, doesn't it?

"Brooks was also drunk. Perhaps he just wasn’t thinking clearly."

Every interaction with police should be done drunk, then, obviously, because if you're drunk then nothing you do is your fault! The police can't touch you!

"But does anyone really want to argue that what started out as an incident of public drunkenness should’ve ended in Brooks’ death?"

No one's arguing that. Plenty of people are arrested for drunk driving and don't steal an officers taser, shoots them with it, then runs away.

"Focusing on Brooks’ record distracts from the real issue: appropriate use of deadly force by police, even when Brooks was running away."

And you fuckers at @ajc are still ignoring the cavalcade of fuckups committed PRIOR TO the running away. Congrats. Your apology fucking sucks

"The public interest in these questions is pressing because the answers will point us toward solutions to prevent similar outcomes."

Stop being fucking partisan hacks throwing gasoline on a goddamn dumpster fire you fucking hacks @ajc. You know you fucked up, but you double down

"Complete coverage provides the context for Brooks’ criminal record – but that kind of reporting takes more time than our country’s minute-by-minute news cycle has the patience for."

Yes, 'well, we CAN'T provide the whole story because nobody has time for THAT!'

You built that.

You and every other spoogerag of a journalistic outfit built the culture of new via headlines, using big bold words and slanted phrasing in the titles while burying the lead 3 paragraphs into dry as fuck writing, jamming all the derogatory inflammatory shit in the first paragraph

"But back to the essential question about how you see Brooks. As a murder victim? As a panicked man desperate to avoid going back to jail? As a “criminal whose actions caused his death”? We’re all obligated to answer those questions, and consider why we feel that way."

You know what I don't see him as?

Someone worth burning down half of Atlanta over.

You made that. You caused that. You had the responsibility to make sure this was done right, and you fucked up. You had ONE JOB. DO NOT ADD TO THE DUMPSTER FIRE.

YOU ADDED TO IT.

Assholes.

/e