TV anchor fired after stunningly insensitive post about “young black men” with “multiple siblings from multiple fathers”


Wendy Bell probably thought she meant well. She probably thought she was being insightful, sensitive, concerned, even. So it must have come as quite a surprise to the veteran Pittsburgh journalist when she instead lost her job for publishing offensively sweeping racial generalizations on social media.

The 21-time regional Emmy Award winning WTAE-TV anchor and reporter took to Facebook earlier this month to air her thoughts on a mass shooting during a family cookout in Wilkinsburg that left five adults — including an eight-months pregnant woman, along with her baby— dead. Police have made no arrests, though last week one man was questioned in connection with the tragedy.

Link

(03-31-2016 12:13 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  TV anchor fired after stunningly insensitive post about “young black men” with “multiple siblings from multiple fathers”


Wendy Bell probably thought she meant well. She probably thought she was being insightful, sensitive, concerned, even. So it must have come as quite a surprise to the veteran Pittsburgh journalist when she instead lost her job for publishing offensively sweeping racial generalizations on social media.

The 21-time regional Emmy Award winning WTAE-TV anchor and reporter took to Facebook earlier this month to air her thoughts on a mass shooting during a family cookout in Wilkinsburg that left five adults — including an eight-months pregnant woman, along with her baby— dead. Police have made no arrests, though last week one man was questioned in connection with the tragedy.

Link

Good, what a racist and vile thing to say. This woman is pure evil and should face jail time for her racial stereotypes and hate speech but we all know how lax the courts are to whites.

Insensitive? Maybe. Inaccurate? Yet to be seen. What happens if she happens to be right? What happened to her right to express her opinion? Speech is protected right?

I bet she is right.

90% of the Time now days, that could be the Truth. If the truth hurts................

(03-31-2016 12:32 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Insensitive? Maybe. Inaccurate? Yet to be seen. What happens if she happens to be right? What happened to her right to express her opinion? Speech is protected right?

She has a right to say what she said and the company had a right to fire her.

Any original thoughts, Fit?

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

Which is why I don't watch local news unless there is a tornado warning.
Local news is produced for the lowest IQ common denominator. The lady is probably 100% accurate. Not surprised that she got fired although she did not say this on air.

Local news is also complicit in covering up black on white knockout game.

(03-31-2016 12:32 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Insensitive? Maybe. Inaccurate? Yet to be seen. What happens if she happens to be right? What happened to her right to express her opinion? Speech is protected right?

To some, it doesn't matter AT ALL if she is right.

(03-31-2016 12:44 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Any original thoughts, Fit?

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

original thoughts from fit? thats a good one lol

Stories like this reinforce that even my least gracious suspicions about social justice warriors are true; that it’s not about justice, but rather about control.

Punishing people for how they act is traditional American justice; but punishing people for how they Think is the new social justice normal.

(03-31-2016 12:39 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-31-2016 12:32 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Insensitive? Maybe. Inaccurate? Yet to be seen. What happens if she happens to be right? What happened to her right to express her opinion? Speech is protected right?

She has a right to say what she said and the company had a right to fire her.

True. Interesting you take the side of the company that terminated her in this case. I wonder would you take the side of the company if she had railed against George Bush, or been a vocal supporter of the NRA.

*edit for wrong name earlier.

Sure, her mistake was applying it to specific individuals before knowing whether the mental sketch applied.

But she hit the bullseye when it comes to common themes in urban violence cases: broken family, absent parents, a rap sheet a mile long, no fear of authority or jail, 'nothing to lose.'

The headline itself is a bit misleading, likely intentionally:

Quote:How not to write about race: TV anchor fired after stunningly insensitive post about “young black men” with “multiple siblings from multiple fathers”

She wasn't really commenting on young black men (in general), but the young, urban black men caught up in the inner-city world of crime.

(03-31-2016 12:39 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-31-2016 12:32 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Insensitive? Maybe. Inaccurate? Yet to be seen. What happens if she happens to be right? What happened to her right to express her opinion? Speech is protected right?

She has a right to say what she said and the company had a right to fire her.

I agree; however, the mere fact that the company thought for one second that it needed to fire her is what is really sad and a terrible indictment to how far we've falling as a society with regard to free speech and fear of hurting someone's feelings, etc.

I'm not sure what the problem is with what she said.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

(03-31-2016 12:55 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Stories like this reinforce that even my least gracious suspicions about social justice warriors are true; that it’s not about justice, but rather about control.

Punishing people for how they act is traditional American justice; but punishing people for how they Think is the new social justice normal.

She wasn't punished for what she thinks. She was punished for what she wrote.

(03-31-2016 12:59 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-31-2016 12:55 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Stories like this reinforce that even my least gracious suspicions about social justice warriors are true; that it’s not about justice, but rather about control.

Punishing people for how they act is traditional American justice; but punishing people for how they Think is the new social justice normal.

She wasn't punished for what she thinks. She was punished for what she wrote.

WTF?

(03-31-2016 12:59 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-31-2016 12:55 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Stories like this reinforce that even my least gracious suspicions about social justice warriors are true; that it’s not about justice, but rather about control.

Punishing people for how they act is traditional American justice; but punishing people for how they Think is the new social justice normal.

She wasn't punished for what she thinks. She was punished for what she wrote.

So we can't express certain thoughts without being punished?

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

(03-31-2016 12:59 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-31-2016 12:55 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Stories like this reinforce that even my least gracious suspicions about social justice warriors are true; that it’s not about justice, but rather about control.

Punishing people for how they act is traditional American justice; but punishing people for how they Think is the new social justice normal.

She wasn't punished for what she thinks. She was punished for what she wrote.

Hopefully one day people will get fired for using the overtly racist term "white privilege"