USA Today editor alleges 'white authority' after being fired for a tweet(cnn.com)
cnn.com
USA Today editor alleges 'white authority' after being fired for a tweet
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/26/media/usa-today-editor-hemal-jhaveri-fired/index.html
15 comments
I mean. They're human. This was a tweet, not a news article. People are allowed to be upset and say stupid stuff. We all do it. We shouldn't lose our jobs over it.
I am conflicted because I agree with you, but also think that if someone said it was always an angry black man they would (rightly) have been fired without half the controversy.
Maybe the moral of the story is - racist, sexist, -ist, or anything about a group of people: don't use absolute, stereotypical generalization language without cause as a public person and/or representing a company.
Sure, but where do we draw the line on people saying bad things while venting?
I agree people should have room for errors. However this person's job was "race and inclusion editor".
If someone's job was to say "guard a vault" and the vault is robbed because they had a bad day, it's reasonable they are fired.
I don't think this person should be "cancelled", but I can't imagine keeping this person in such a role.
If someone's job was to say "guard a vault" and the vault is robbed because they had a bad day, it's reasonable they are fired.
I don't think this person should be "cancelled", but I can't imagine keeping this person in such a role.
Yep, it seems like bad judgment in this case.
In general, the outrage and retribution mob too often defenestrate proportionality.
In general, the outrage and retribution mob too often defenestrate proportionality.
Hard to say. On the corp side, it depends on the professionalism and image the account and public personality is expected to uphold.
It could be a good idea for such accounts to be held by a social media commenting approval dept acting as an extra layer of humans to double-check, e.g., "do you really want to post this as-is?"
It could be a good idea for such accounts to be held by a social media commenting approval dept acting as an extra layer of humans to double-check, e.g., "do you really want to post this as-is?"
Ugh, it's a tough one. OOH, they're representing the company and not supposed to communicate to the public impulsively. OTOH, people have bad days. It maybe that this was an ostensible reason to fire added to other, built-up internal political animosity for previous behaviors. If they were so beloved, why would they just fire them for a deleted tweet and dump them for a single mistake?
The thing is, i agree with you. But they dont. White men get fired for much less.
They made the rules. Now they get to live with them.
They made the rules. Now they get to live with them.
"Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." seems to be the sentiment.
> Jhaveri admitted in her post that it was a "dashed off over-generalization."
I think there is already a name for generalizing about a race.
I think there is already a name for generalizing about a race.
Slightly edited title to fit char limit. Mods, feel free to change to fit.
In her Medium post, the editor, Hemal Jhaveri, opened by saying, "I am no longer employed at USA TODAY, a company that was my work home for almost eight years."
In Friday's post, Jhaveri, who identifies as Indian American, alleged that she faced "constant micro-aggressions and outright racist remarks" while working at USA Today.
It's very hard to take this person seriously.
Yeah, I don't think it was the orig tweet, but a pattern like that statement and similar underlying history that coworkers probably mistrusted them. Walking on eggshells-type stuff.
"Jhaveri wrote that she was fired after she faced criticism and harassment online over a tweet she posted "responding to the fact that mass shooters are most likely to be white men." The tweet in question said, wrongly, "It's always an angry white man. always." Jhaveri admitted in her post that it was a "dashed off over-generalization."
She said she apologized and deleted the tweet. "It was a careless error of judgement, sent at a heated time, that doesn't represent my commitment to racial equality. I regret sending it," she wrote"
So a journalist whose primarily job is to attempt to convey the events of the world in a factual way made something up without fact checking and then was fired for it. How about just not making broad over-generalizations in the first place, especially if your job is intended to combat that? Pulling out the "persecution" card seems disingenuous here and speaks the reporters lack of judgement especially in light of the "Alexi Mccammond" situation.