It's a travesty to end someone's career over "chink in the armor"

[SlackerInc]

Okay, I'm back. Miss me?

Originally Posted by HoboStew

Gosh, you must be super smart! It makes me wonder why you are wasting your time trying to prove this on a message board, instead of planning Mars missions at NASA!

That would probably be due to the fact that I'm, you know, a slacker and all.

Originally Posted by samclem

So that makes him 43 at a minimum? Right?

Not quite. I'm not going to state my exact birthdate, but let's just say I was still in utero when "the Eagle landed", but had arrived on this earth by the time Richie Havens took the stage in Bethel.

I want to mention one thing that may have been lost in the tumult. The heat I've taken in this thread is from people who are incensed somehow that I believe someone (who, unless he made up all that stuff about volunteering to help the unfortunate, is apparently an unusually generous and kind person) should be given the benefit of the doubt. (You'd think, from the general reaction to that proposition, that I had advocated puppy torture or something, jeez Louise.)

We're never going to settle the issue of whether not seeing a racial connotation in this headline is or is not "stupid" or an oversight so egregious someone deserves to lose their job for it alone. We're deadlocked over an ultimately subjective matter of opinion there. But I do think that I hopefully proved one point here that is important for Federico's reputation even if it doesn't get him his job back: that is, dispelling the misconception that he wrote the headline as an intentional prank.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by SlackerInc

The heat I've taken in this thread is from people who are incensed somehow that I believe someone (who, unless he made up all that stuff about volunteering to help the unfortunate, is apparently an unusually generous and kind person) should be given the benefit of the doubt.

What's the benefit of the doubt worth, though? Whatever kind of benefit we give him, he made the same mistake and it caused the same problem.

[SlackerInc]

Originally Posted by Marley23

What's the benefit of the doubt worth, though? Whatever kind of benefit we give him, he made the same mistake and it caused the same problem.

Did you ever see The Lion King? Sounds like Scar's logic when telling Simba it was his fault his dead was dead. That is, perhaps there is some technical truth to it but it is "ungenerous" to say the very least.

[Marley23]

I've seen the movie, and you're comparing a statement of fact to a lie. Do you think you can do a little better than that? People were interested in Federico's intent for sure, but it's never been the sole issue here, and I'm not sure it was ever the biggest issue. A lot of people have said he deserved to be fired regardless of his intent because the headline looks the same regardless of what he was thinking (or not thinking) when he wrote it.

[SlackerInc]

No, it wasn't a flat out lie, although Scar certainly didn't tell the whole truth. He said more or less the same type of thing you did: "sure, you didn't intend it to happen, but your dad still died because you were in the way of the stampede". If intentionality doesn't matter, then we may as well blame butterflies in Africa for the deaths of hurricane victims in New Orleans.

[Marley23]

This is getting silly. I said his intent does not matter much in this instance because his intent does not change the text in the headline. I'm not making a blanket statement that intent never matters. There are many situations where your intent matters morally and legally, and there are instances where your intent really doesn't matter. I think I said this pages and pages ago, but in terms of Federico's mistake and the consequences it caused for ESPN, his intent doesn't matter.

[Frylock]

Originally Posted by Marley23

What's the benefit of the doubt worth, though? Whatever kind of benefit we give him, he made the same mistake and it caused the same problem.

You're pointing out that after-the-fact idle discussions on the Straight Dope have no actual measurable effect on events.

We all know this already.

Why are you pointing it out?

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Frylock

Why are you pointing it out?

That's not what I'm pointing out. I was saying that he wrote the same headline whatever you think his intent was, so his intent is not that important. I explained this in post #356 (and probably a bunch of other ones).

[Frylock]

Got it--I hadn't read that post.

[Miller]

Originally Posted by SlackerInc

Did you ever see The Lion King? Sounds like Scar's logic when telling Simba it was his fault his dead was dead. That is, perhaps there is some technical truth to it but it is "ungenerous" to say the very least.

In that scene, isn't Simba, like, a year old? If you want to argue that Frederico has the same moral culpability as a pre-teen child, fine, but that's also a pretty strong argument for him not to be writing headlines for ESPN. They should really have an adult in that position.

[FixMyIgnorance]

Anyone else reminded of this topic again with Santorum's recent "nig" slip-up?

[Marley23]

Eh, that seems kind of different- partly because nobody is sure what Santo said or even what he was trying to say. People are weighing in in a thread in IMHO, though.

[Cheesesteak]

Since this has been bumped, may as well throw in this story, it appears Lin and Federico had lunch this week. Lin keeps impressing me by being a decent and classy guy.

[FixMyIgnorance]

It is different but the plausible-deniability aspect of it all rang similar to me.

Originally Posted by Cheesesteak

Since this has been bumped, may as well throw in this story, it appears Lin and Federico had lunch this week. Lin keeps impressing me by being a decent and classy guy.

very interesting -- thanks