He “covered” the story almost two days after it dropped. He also basically copped pleas for a clear misappropriation of funds due to his personal relationships with the founders of the group. Compare this to his coverage of the downfall of the BNC, which he used as an “I told you so” soapbox moment.
He’s clearly going easy on this story, even going as far as saying it could be a right-wing hit job (which I didn’t know New York Magazine was a right wing publication?).
He knows the founders, he also knows how much money they have in their war chest (which he could get a piece of by playing nice), so he’s not going nearly as hard as he should to hold their feet to the fire. He didn’t even dig into details of the story. He spent more time reading Patrisse Cullors statement word for word, as if we can’t do that ourselves.
Did he address it? Sure. Did he also tip-toe to protect people? Absolutely.
Jemele Hill and her crew is saying Patrisse Bought that house using book money and speaking proceeds. Bullshyt!
BLM won’t be prosecuted because they are tied in with the Clinton’s and democrats. Got me up here sounding like Tucker Carlson but this shyt got me hot!
Jemele Hill and her crew is saying Patrisse Bought that house using book money and speaking proceeds. Bullshyt!
BLM won’t be prosecuted because they are tied in with the Clinton’s and democrats. Got me up here sounding like Tucker Carlson but this shyt got me hot!
He “covered” the story almost two days after it dropped. He also basically copped pleas for a clear misappropriation of funds due to his personal relationships with the founders of the group. Compare this to his coverage of the downfall of the BNC, which he used as an “I told you so” soapbox moment.
He’s clearly going easy on this story, even going as far as saying it could be a right-wing hit job (which I didn’t know New York Magazine was a right wing publication?).
He knows the founders, he also knows how much money they have in their war chest (which he could get a piece of by playing nice), so he’s not going nearly as hard as he should to hold their feet to the fire. He didn’t even dig into details of the story. He spent more time reading Patrisse Cullors statement word for word, as if we can’t do that ourselves.
Did he address it? Sure. Did he also tip-toe to protect people? Absolutely.
That's one way to look at it.
The other way to look at it was that as a media entity, he tried to be the first outlet to do a live interview with the involved parties. Those who break stories and those who get the first interview in hot button issues are the ones that the most mileage from covering the story in the media business.
I will concede your point about the delay in addressing the story, but " he did it because tlr applied pressure" or because social media was on his ass is comical.
Once the story broke, every other outlet is playing catchup and either repeating the story or fishing for an exclusive or a different angle of coverage. That is the currency in news media, for the big boys and especially for independent media entities. Once there was no exclusive, and they declined to respond or appear....he covered the story
==
RM got breaking coverage and exclusives about several stories the past two years. Most recently the Howard U. student protest about substandard dorm conditions.
He has ties to nearly all the major Black institutions/organizations, but he lights fire under their asses when it's time. As he aired Howard president and administrators out for unacceptable response to complaints about unsafe living conditions. People want to believe certain things, so they will.....but the facts support RM moving the same way about these controversial stories.....covers it, gives the parties involved a chance to publicly address or answer the controversy.
He did the same thing when BNC collapsed, and none of the parties wanted to appear on camera to answer questions. And none of the fired workers wanted to go on the record on his show and burn bridges. Another thing about BNC Autopsy was that it is consistent with Roland's coverage of Black media. Both the ones be has ties to, and those he doesn't. He is a veteran journalist and as such can speak with authority about the intricacies of news content and the media business.
He “covered” the story almost two days after it dropped. He also basically copped pleas for a clear misappropriation of funds due to his personal relationships with the founders of the group. Compare this to his coverage of the downfall of the BNC, which he used as an “I told you so” soapbox moment.
He’s clearly going easy on this story, even going as far as saying it could be a right-wing hit job (which I didn’t know New York Magazine was a right wing publication?).
He knows the founders, he also knows how much money they have in their war chest (which he could get a piece of by playing nice), so he’s not going nearly as hard as he should to hold their feet to the fire. He didn’t even dig into details of the story. He spent more time reading Patrisse Cullors statement word for word, as if we can’t do that ourselves.
Did he address it? Sure. Did he also tip-toe to protect people? Absolutely.
Jemele Hill and her crew is saying Patrisse Bought that house using book money and speaking proceeds. Bullshyt!
BLM won’t be prosecuted because they are tied in with the Clinton’s and democrats. Got me up here sounding like Tucker Carlson but this shyt got me hot!
The day this story dropped, a bunch of the usual blue check gang who had promoted BLM were either deflecting, ignoring it, or just throwing the organization under the bus on Twitter.
Too many of those Black people on that platform are just compromised completely and can't be trusted
Btw, this thread is great cause it reminds me I have to unfollow a lot of people on Twitter that were playing dodgeball when it came to their thoughts and opinions on BLM buying mansions with blood money.
I personally don't know why an organization buying a property to work in is something wild.
The value of the property is still there and they are still doing what the organization is supposed to do. As long as your do not use funds to enrich yourself, it's different.
Now the organization does seem like they failed all types of basic financial reasoning but to be stupid and to be a con artist are different things.
The feds should investigate the organization for fraud though, stories like these might just mislead the public from the real crimes being committed. Its sad that the organization carries that name as the movement or organization are different things
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
