It's just a bad idea for mainstream journalists to block independents for asking questions, even very pointed, borderline accusatory questions. If you can answer them, do, if you can't, say "I don't know," or "I will look into it," or even "touche" especially if 1/
you *claim* to agree with the core point which is that CRT should not be in our schools. But when you block, and completely disengage, you leave the field wide open for people to wonder why you're so thin-skinned about it? 2/
Mature adults who genuinely think they're being harassed unfairly can contact the person directly, especially when you *know* the person personally, and have communicated with them on these topics neutrally before. 3/
There comes a day in every journalist's life, I presume, when he or she is gonna be called out for not covering something as thoroughly as they should have, or could have, or for being flat out wrong about something. What you do next speaks VOLUMES about your character. 4/
"Blocking" should be reserved for those who are TRULY abusive and offensive, not people asking pointed questions, or persisting beyond what are pretty obvious deflections and non-responses. Not even saying responses are required! NOT answering is an option too./5
But if your answer is itself going to contain snark, snide, condescending remarks, implications the questioner is ignorant, or stupid, and you get as good as you gave? Well then, blocking only serves to make the questioner look like maybe they ARE over a target.../END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
