Quote: (06-04-2018 11:34 PM)CynicalContrarian Wrote:
A Roseanne Spinoff Could Be Announced This Week
https://screenrant.com/roseanne-spinoff-...ment-soon/
A Roseanne spinoff is looking more and more likely, with insiders expecting an announcement from ABC as early as this week. ABC has been contemplating a potential spinoff centered around Darlene Conner (Sara Gilbert) ever since they canceled the hit Roseanne revival last month; a move made in response to a horrifically racist tweet that Roseanne Barr had written on her personal Twitter account.
Roseanne had already been renewed for a second season when the series was canceled, so that left ABC with an open primetime slot to fill. While some people were hoping ABC would revive Agent Carter, it seems they plan on moving forward with a Roseanne spinoff. Aside from Gilbert, the Roseanne executive producers are reportedly scrambling to find a way to bring back Dan (John Goodman), Jackie (Laurie Metcalf), and possibly the rest of the revival cast– minus Barr, of course.
"...a move made in response to a horrifically racist tweet that Roseanne Barr had written on her personal Twitter account."
This sentence is a textbook example of why journalism as a field is now despised by so many Americans. It's not the big focus of the journalist's stories. The bias is easy to spot there. It's the little things they throw in on the sly.
This writer's use of the words "horrifically racist" is such a phrase. It's not "reporting." He's editorializing. And he's stoking hysteria by using a hyperbolic phrase.
Roseanne has said she didn't know the woman targeted by the Tweet, Valerie Jarrett, was even black. Whether that's true or not, it's part of the public record. Therefore, the phrase "unintentionally racist" might apply. An honest reporter has to acknowledge this.
But even if she did know, Roseanne's Tweet was more idiotic, immature, and just plain bigoted than "horrifically racist." Whatever the case, "career-destroying Tweet" would have been the most accurate description.
Back in the old days, copy editors would comb through your every word and pull out phrases that you might have reflexively written without really them through. Copy editors were largely purged from publications because of the great 2008-09 downturn, so this kind of poor writing is what you now get.
Most readers don't see little things like this, but still feel them on an emotional level. This is how reporters insidiously get their biases to slip through their stories.
If I had any ambition, I'd hold a "how to decode journalists" courses. As with "Seinfeld," it's all about "the little things."