Another Bills reporter trying to make himself the story

[dwight in philly]

Curious, if Fromm made past comments "inadvertantly " about support for BLM , would he be facing this ? 

Edited August 7, 2020 by dwight in philly

[JMF2006]

Just another pc jerk  trying to force his thoughts on someone else JMHO

[Doc]

20 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

i would say calling this tweet and/or the reaction a mountain is certainly you doing exactly that

It’s actually the opposite: me making a mole hill out of a mountain.

[Warcodered]

15 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

FWIW, here is Marcel LJ's story.  Do you find it unprofessional?

 

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/29615286/jake-fromm-looks-make-amends-elite-white-people-text

I think we're in the "grey fuzzy area" where Twitter is

-a tool reporters use to build following thus enhance their value to employers

-but also a platform for that reporter's personal beliefs and reactions

 

I think MLJ wrote a good professional article about Fromm's interview.  Then in twitter gave his perspective as a black man.   My personal thought was, as the result of 2 months purported "educating myself, staying really close to my friends that are on the other side, having those conversations and really helping out however I can", for Fromm to be asked his opinion "on the state of social inequality in the country" and respond "last thing I want to do is get political in any way" but add the "world would be a better place if we can love God first and then love people" is Weak-Sauce. 

 

There's a lot of space between full-on "Black Lives Matter" and "last thing I want to do is get political in any way".

 

JMO.

That's definitely a professional report keeps his opinions out of it. On his twitter though I think he's blurred the line there because there have been plenty of times where it seemed he was reporting from there.

[Jauronimo]

6 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

Not a very good analogy this wasn't a private conversation it was one specifically meant to be put out there for all to see.

Its a perfect analogy.  The insensitive language was used in an email meant for one person who then ratted me out.

[NoHuddleKelly12]

14 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

No, he doesn't owe Marcel or the public those things, but if he wants to persuade Marcel LJ (who seems to be one of just a handful of black reporters for national media) and provide evidence to black players on other teams that he's genuinely educating himself on issues of race, one would think in 2 months he could come up with a better answer.

But "a better answer" would be purely subjective to the ears of whoever is listening, no? That may be the problem ultimately, that no answer would make all equally happy in that context?

[NoSaint]

2 minutes ago, Doc said:

It’s actually the opposite: me making a mole hill out of a mountain.

If you can point me to anyone besides you framing it as mountainous...

[HamSandwhich]

9 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

How about “acceptable to someone that was just told that the speaker has been learning important information about the topic”

 

 

Not following what you’re saying. Are you saying that since he’s learning about the topic that he absolutely must describe the situation just the way the reporter wants, and by extension, BLM wants him to say? What the reporter is saying is that he doesn’t have the right NOT to have a position on the subject. His position must be “right” or if it’s wrong, and he has a more nuanced view than the broad strokes and generalizations that BLM wants, Fromm will be raked through the coals. So what is your point exactly? 

Edited August 7, 2020 by HamSandwhich

[Hapless Bills Fan]

2 minutes ago, HamSandwhich said:

This is the problem with the BLM, they are now the arbiters of what is right and wrong to say. That’s exactly what this is stemming from. Fromm said nothing wrong but to a Supporter of what BLM actually stands for, this is the way they will see this.

 

Maybe the problem isn't with some hypothetical monolithic BLM entity sees it.

 

Fromm said nothing "wrong" from an abstract perspective, but he also said nothing indicating that any learning or broadening of perspective has occurred for him, can we agree on that?

Perhaps if an individual reporter who has spent his life as a black man in this country sees Fromm's response as an inadequate reflection on what he says has been a couple months learning on racial inequities and different perspectives, the problem isn't "the BLM", the problem is, in fact, the response?

[NoSaint]

6 minutes ago, NoHuddleKelly12 said:

But "a better answer" would be purely subjective to the ears of whoever is listening, no? That may be the problem ultimately, that no answer would make all equally happy in that context?

no - there’s ability to review on content as well as structure. The latter is a lot more quantifiable. 
 

I can say something was a well answered question with an opinion I disagree with. Plenty of well constructed arguments that I think are terrible morally. 
 

his answer wasn’t very good structurally whether or not you share his faith. He dodged the topic. He could’ve said “I use my faith as a guide but have learned— insert whatever he wants” instead of “nah it’s good, I’m religious”

Edited August 7, 2020 by NoSaint

[Warcodered]

15 minutes ago, Jauronimo said:

Its a perfect analogy.  The insensitive language was used in an email meant for one person who then ratted me out.

So the analogy works because something you didn't even say in it lines up with the events? and that somehow negates the other half not lining up at all.

Edited August 7, 2020 by Warcodered

[NoSaint]

2 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Maybe the problem isn't with some hypothetical monolithic BLM entity sees it.

 

Fromm said nothing "wrong" from an abstract perspective, but he also said nothing indicating that any learning or broadening of perspective has occurred for him, can we agree on that?

Perhaps if an individual reporter who has spent his life as a black man in this country sees Fromm's response as an inadequate reflection on what he says has been a couple months learning on racial inequities and different perspectives, the problem isn't "the BLM", the problem is, in fact, the response?

bingo. 

[SCBills]

8 minutes ago, NoHuddleKelly12 said:

But "a better answer" would be purely subjective to the ears of whoever is listening, no? That may be the problem ultimately, that no answer would make all equally happy in that context?

? 
 

I believe in saying “Black Lives Matter”.   The basis of this movement is much needed. 
 

I also believe we’ve, inevitably, reached the point where this movement has become weaponized. 
 

I just offended everyone.  
 

Depending on the reporter, there’s no correct answer in regards to the all encompassing “everything” that surrounds the topic of racial justice in this country.  
 

Marcel Louis-Jacque just happens to reside on the side of the argument that’s socially acceptable at the moment, thus ESPN most assuredly allows him to editorialize while conflating reporting with personal opinion.  
 

Edited August 7, 2020 by SCBills

[DFT]

4 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Maybe the problem isn't with some hypothetical monolithic BLM entity sees it.

 

Fromm said nothing "wrong" from an abstract perspective, but he also said nothing indicating that any learning or broadening of perspective has occurred for him, can we agree on that?

Perhaps if an individual reporter who has spent his life as a black man in this country sees Fromm's response as an inadequate reflection on what he says has been a couple months learning on racial inequities and different perspectives, the problem isn't "the BLM", the problem is, in fact, the response?

You bring up great points and some I don’t agree with, but always appreciate the grace in which you share!  ?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

9 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

That's definitely a professional report keeps his opinions out of it. On his twitter though I think he's blurred the line there because there have been plenty of times where it seemed he was reporting from there.

 

Yeah, that's one of my points:

 

Twitter is problematic, because reporters often use the same account both to promote their professional work, AND to express their personal opinions.

I took it as M L-J doing the latter.

[HamSandwhich]

Just now, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Maybe the problem isn't with some hypothetical monolithic BLM entity sees it.

 

Fromm said nothing "wrong" from an abstract perspective, but he also said nothing indicating that any learning or broadening of perspective has occurred for him, can we agree on that?

Perhaps if an individual reporter who has spent his life as a black man in this country sees Fromm's response as an inadequate reflection on what he says has been a couple months learning on racial inequities and different perspectives, the problem isn't "the BLM", the problem is, in fact, the response?

Yes, I do see that as wrong. No one has a right to another persons genuflection to their ideology. No matter how noble you think it is. Since when has it become ok to demand someone to tell you what you want them to hear and then cry foul if they don’t do what you want them to? It’s bush league for a reporter, and a general stain on today’s society. What if what Fromm learned is something more nuanced and not does not agree with the general drivel of the BLM. What would have happened if he said he’s against a lot of what they stand for? Would you have applauded him for saying so or would he have been called a racist for having dared have a differing opinion. 

[NoHuddleKelly12]

9 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Maybe the problem isn't with some hypothetical monolithic BLM entity sees it.

 

Fromm said nothing "wrong" from an abstract perspective, but he also said nothing indicating that any learning or broadening of perspective has occurred for him, can we agree on that?

Perhaps if an individual reporter who has spent his life as a black man in this country sees Fromm's response as an inadequate reflection on what he says has been a couple months learning on racial inequities and different perspectives, the problem isn't "the BLM", the problem is, in fact, the response?

I interpreted what Fromm was saying to mean what the point behind 'loving your neighbor as you would like to be treated' is--namely, if all of us no matter what race or status we have in this world, are still equal before God, then those same differences of race/status could/should not be the basis for unequal treatment by each of us of one another.    

[Rico]

Please bring Mike Rodak back.

[Doc]

8 minutes ago, NoSaint said:

If you can point me to anyone besides you framing it as mountainous...

Try looking at the subject matter of the first post. That would be a good start.

[GunnerBill]

I vehemently and most strongly disagree with Fromm. We should put loving other people above all else.