Richard Stevens, chair of the UNC Board, wants me to share his email with the 300 journalism faculty and deans who signed the letter of protest regarding Nikole Hannah-Jones' appointment to the school. Here it is:1/
I responded that I take this as promising as I hope the board will offer Nikole Hannah-Jones tenure and will be the first to congratulate them. Otherwise, I am sure many schools would leap at the opportunity to hire a journalist of such singular reputation, and ability. 2/
More: I asked Stevens whether the board would vote on tenure. He responded: "Our last board meeting of the academic year was last week and my term as chair & as a board member is ending." I said: "It is a pity that your term ended without the milestone of hiring @nhannahjones."
Stevens kept trying to come back to his fake-news defense: that a "blog" got it wrong.
Except the truth remains that Hannah-Jones does not now have tenure.
What so, uh, ironic about the UNC affair is that by not granting tenure the Board demonstrates just how vital tenure is.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Jeff Jarvis

Jeff Jarvis Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @jeffjarvis

13 May
This is good, as far as it goes. It is written from journalism's perspective without acknowledging media's larger strategy, its moral panic, against technology, playing out not only in print but in lobbying governments. 1/
nymag.com/intelligencer/…
See this paragraph from a proposal I'm working on. 2/
What the titan v. titan storyline misses is the public: "reader" to one side, "user" to the other. The internet gave people too long not heard agency; they are flexing their power and that is what scares the incumbents from media and their conspirators in politics. 3/
Read 8 tweets
11 May
Now here's Niall Ferguson on TV making excused for Donald Trump and the pandemic.
As an antidote to the moral panic of Niall Ferguson & Morning Joe about disinformation and social media, please read this paper by @duncanjwatts, @DavMicRot & @markusmobius: "Fake news is a tiny proportion of Americans' information diets."
google.com/search?q=measu…
* excuses
Read 4 tweets
11 May
N.B., @JoeNBC, that @BrendanNyhan said *elite* messages are where danger lurks: not your average Facebook post but lies from politicians and that other cable "news" channel that exploit group identity. 1/
What can we do? I'm working on a post arguing that we in media need to provide other paths for belonging: e.g., demonstrating to parents that they share concerns and needs as the start of conversation and journalism, rather than setting groups against each other. 2/
I'm grateful that @BrendanNyhan dismissed glib claims--hmm, wonder where--that Section #230 is the problem. The question is, how can we use Facebook + media to foster constructive paths of belonging and community.
Read 6 tweets
10 May
I have spoken. I gave @ginoseast five pies in my very scientific survey/boondoggle for @people. (God, those were the days.)
Take that @mathewi
CC: @pilhofer
And then there is this, my welcome to San Francisco for Uno's and Chicago pizza. They used to hang this in every Uno's across the country. Those, too, were the days.
Here is my full report for People, thank goodness without the embarrassing picture of me in a red-striped pizza chef's outfit.
people.com/archive/in-sea…
Read 5 tweets
5 May
Legal Twitter is enjoying the nuances of the Oversight Board decision while information, political, and tech Twitter are viewing it through other sides of the prism, looking more at the impact, I think.
Many are enjoying the bind the Oversight Board put Facebook in. Meanwhile, that bind will be exploited by Trump et al over the next six months, doing more damage to the net as self-appointed net watchdogs from both right and left imagine new torture for #230, etc.
So *neither* Facebook nor the Oversight Board made a strong statement about the unacceptability of not only inciting insurrection but also promulgating the Big Lie against democratic elections. Both failed to keep their eyes on the highest priorities.
Read 5 tweets
5 May
The decision in a nutshell, throwing the ball back over the net to Facebook. I disagree with the board that Facebook's decision was not proportionate. In fact, Facebook's decision was long overdue and appropriate.
oversightboard.com/decision/FB-69…
The Oversight Board "insisting" that Facebook review its own decision is kinda cute: the Board telling Facebook to do what the Board itself didn't have the guts to do.
The board says: " It is not permissible for Facebook to keep a user off the platform for an undefined period, with no criteria for when or whether the account will be restored." No. There are cardinal sins that merit hell, forever.
Read 30 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(