Previous post
You would think, by now, that people who work in the media for a living would know that the Internet is forever. But, as Matthew 12:34 puts it, “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.” The 21st century version would be “out of the abundance of the heart the fingers Tweet.”
Behold the latest example, New York Times writer Philip B. Richardson.
So, what did Jeb Bush actually say?
Bush spoke at a New Hampshire town hall where a young African-American man asked the candidate about his tax policies, racial disparities and the existence of the “culture of poverty.”
Bush gave a rather long and rather complex answer (emphasis mine) that included one prescription for ending poverty: “stronger families. Stronger families matter,” he said.
Seems as if Richardson skipped over the “long and rather complex answer” and picked out something that he disagreed with. And then his mouth – or rather, his fingers – revealed what kind of person he is.
Richardson, whose personal Twitter bio identifies him as “Visual and Social Media. Writer/Blogger/Producer. Works @NYTimes,” soon deleted his tweet, but not before Bush’s staff caught it. Bush’s spokesman, Tim Miller, quickly took to Twitter to highlight Richardson’s message and his employer: “NY Times reporter drops an FU Jeb.”
For someone who is supposed to be working in “visual and social media,” he really doesn’t get how this whole Twitter thing works.
And the New York Times was quick to both distance themselves and scold the employee.
A Times spokesperson called the tweet inappropriate and said that the staffer is being dealt with. Richardson does not report on politics, the spokesperson said, and is a news assistant assigned to the photo desk.
“This tweet was completely inappropriate. Philip Richardson is a news assistant on The Times’s clerical staff, assigned to the photo desk. He is not a reporter or editor and is not involved in political coverage. Nevertheless, tweets like this are inappropriate for any Times newsroom staffer, and managers will take the necessary steps to deal with the situation,” the spokesperson said.
Methinks Richardson won’t be getting a promotion anytime soon from his “assistant to clerical staff at the photo desk” status, despite his own glorified Twitter bio of himself.
And the media wonders why the public believes that it is biased. When those working in the media feel free to make public commentary that includes expletives, we kind of get an impression of what kind of person they are. Once again, Twitter reveals someone’s heart in 140 characters or less. And that impression will last forever on the Internet.
Ooh-such crude language from a paper that considers itself the Tiffanys of the newspaper world. I’m sure all twenty of their readers were taken aback by this.
Well, Richardson is honest if nothing else. The snobbish hypocrites at the Times have thought exactly like that and worse of anyone who doesn’t share their Progressive views for decades now. It’s part of the reason why hardly anyone reads that rag anymore except for hardcore Progs.
So, this Einstein’s reasoning is that since poverty weakens families, there can be no reciprocal influence?
(BTW, he’s wrong, too. Poverty does NOT weaken families. Generally speaking, lack of money is not a factor in producing almost any single-parent situation. *Arguing about* money might be, but that’s a personality issue, not a monetary one.)
2 Comments