I don’t understand why you keep ignoring me very clearly saying that it’s right and good to report on her being abusive towards her workers. That’s not the same thing as having a temper. You can have a temper and not be abusive, you can be abusive and not have a temper. Surely if you’re worried about solidarity towards the workers it would be preferable for the emphasis to be on her being abusive towards them, rather than hiding that behind the much vaguer “has a temper”?
I don’t understand why you keep ignoring me very clearly saying that it’s right and good to report on her being abusive towards her workers. That’s not the same thing as having a temper. You can have a temper and not be abusive, you can be abusive and not have a temper.
Her workers literally said she had anger problems and gave those as examples. The journalist in question is reporting what they said.
Surely if you’re worried about solidarity towards the workers it would be preferable for the emphasis to be on her being abusive towards them, rather than hiding that behind the much vaguer “has a temper”?
That didn’t happen. The journalist didn’t say any of that in their initial tweet, it was just part of the article alongside those examples. Instead, this was brought up in an antagonistic reply that cherry-picked out that quote to make a very similar point to you, but in a clearly cynical fashion just like Morales does. When the journalist and others did tweet about it, it was in response to that.
My mistake, I misread the tweets. Thanks for pointing that out. I’m more conflicted now- I do wish Barkan had emphasised the abusive rather than angry aspect a little more, but I’m not sure this really warrants criticism, and I agree that the replying tweet was using this as deflection.
