Jemele Hill Twitter avatars

So members of the media changed their Twitter avatars to show support for Jemele Hill. This strikes me as a little tone-deaf. I believe Hill's comments were stupid, but they shouldn't have risen to the level of the White House taking time to address it. However, given the media's "role" in political discourse these days, do you think changing avatars will just feed the negative perception of them (and this applies to a lot more than just Trump sycophants)?

 

Whitlock has to be envious of Jemele Hill's Q rating.

 

I denounce your premise and, frankly, think your obsession with avatars is utter bullshit.

 

Was hoping to hear from some good journalists.

 

This strikes me as a little tone-deaf.

 

Around here, it probably is.

 

I'm not totally sure it matters.

People want to be mad. They want to read things that make them feel good and in a lot of ways want something to enrage them. For the first, they'll often migrate to fringy and less down the middle outlets. For the latter, they'll often see what they want to and lose their fucking minds. We see it with rankings, with minor political coverage, with remembering that one thing in a 3-hour broadcast that felt like it was slighting your team.

I'd love to imagine some of that would abate if folks were just more private about their views, but I think this train has already left the station. (Plus, journalists love to stick up for each other in writer fights)

 

Nothing to be gained from it. Doing this merely gives management the excuse to whack you one day.

 

It's really starting to look like this random thing that happened came straight from an agent's slideshow.

 

It wasn't organic?

 

Guess I don't follow any of the important media members on twitter since I haven't seen any Jemele avatars.