I started to write some thoughts about this, but it started devolving into cynical and sarcastic commentary. I'd rather not be so negative, so I'm just going to list a few things I learned from Kevin Urick, presented without (much) comment:
- Apparently DNA evidence is hard to collect when there is no blood. And in strangulation cases where there is no murder weapon, there is no blood. I guess skin cells don't contain DNA. What? There was blood found on a shirt that belonged to the victim likely due to pulmonary edema? Nah, that must have been totally unrelated and has no bearing at all.
- Kevin Urick is a crusader of constitutional rights. And all he got for his trouble was an accusation of misconduct. Shame on us. For shame.
- "Nobody had any misgivins about someone being a Muslim [before 9-11]." Well, that's good to know.
- Urick doesn't "recall ever being contacted by her." Except the time he was contacted by her the week before the last podcast.
- Urick is not going to be a spokesman for the case. And he didn't speak to Koenig out of respect for the family. But one month later, he's totally fine being a spokesman for the case. And apparently he no longer is respecting Hae's family.
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
-Abraham Lincoln
The Urick interview was not surprising because there really wasn't much he could say. He can't admit to having questions about the conviction. He can't admit to having reservations about the myriads of lies his start witness testified in court. And he refuses to concede any wrongdoing on his part. He is going to make self-serving statements to defend his reputation. That's understandable.
But then what was the point of the interview? The Intercept got their clicks, but did they really want this attention? The past week was definitely a test of the "any publicity is good publicity" maxim as the criticism of the opinion piece preceding the first part of the interview was (justifiably) harsh and vociferous. It even gave me the opportunity to practice a bit of satire in critiquing their piece (which was a lot of fun, by the way).
And to the Intercept's credit, you'll note a different tenor in this part of the interview. There was no accompanying opinion piece. There were editorial notes correcting and addressing some of the more glaring factual issues. But left in its unadulterated glory, the interview was very flat, unimaginative, and boring. But at least they can't be blasted too harshly for it.
The issue I have is with Natasha Vargas-Cooper and Ken Silverstein's continued drivel from their Twitter feeds. Martin Austermuhle wrote an opinion piece last weekend on the Intercept's apparent trolling of Serial. He cited to tweets from the two authors as examples of their attitude throughout this fiasco, which both authors did not take kindly too.
-Abraham Lincoln
The Urick interview was not surprising because there really wasn't much he could say. He can't admit to having questions about the conviction. He can't admit to having reservations about the myriads of lies his start witness testified in court. And he refuses to concede any wrongdoing on his part. He is going to make self-serving statements to defend his reputation. That's understandable.
But then what was the point of the interview? The Intercept got their clicks, but did they really want this attention? The past week was definitely a test of the "any publicity is good publicity" maxim as the criticism of the opinion piece preceding the first part of the interview was (justifiably) harsh and vociferous. It even gave me the opportunity to practice a bit of satire in critiquing their piece (which was a lot of fun, by the way).
And to the Intercept's credit, you'll note a different tenor in this part of the interview. There was no accompanying opinion piece. There were editorial notes correcting and addressing some of the more glaring factual issues. But left in its unadulterated glory, the interview was very flat, unimaginative, and boring. But at least they can't be blasted too harshly for it.
The issue I have is with Natasha Vargas-Cooper and Ken Silverstein's continued drivel from their Twitter feeds. Martin Austermuhle wrote an opinion piece last weekend on the Intercept's apparent trolling of Serial. He cited to tweets from the two authors as examples of their attitude throughout this fiasco, which both authors did not take kindly too.
You can publish an article on Medium based entirely on reading Tweets or you can report. This is reporting. https://t.co/5G7pvmSWAU
— ken silverstein (@KenSilverstein1) January 14, 2015
But what Silverstein fails to recognize is that in today's world, Twitter may be the best insight one can have into someone else's thoughts. Twitter is the instant, hot take that millions of people make available to the public world, available for public consumption, and embarrassingly difficult to erase or disavow. Twitter gives each person the opportunity to prove him/herself a fool.
This is complicated by the fact that Twitter has also become the most powerful promotional tool in today's society. There have been lawsuits filed to determine who owns rights to a Twitter account that was used for business purposes. Not surprisingly, both Vargas-Cooper and Silverstein posted links to their interview on their Twitter feeds.
This blending of personal and business life, all displayed in a public forum can cause major issues. If you expect people to rely on your Twitter feed for your business-related functions, you should also not be surprised when the snarky, juvenile thing you say in other tweets could be used to judge you. You can't pick and choose what people get to evaluate on. Anything that you put out there to the world is fair game, and you should be prepared accordingly.
No comments:
Post a Comment