We have made it easy to comment on posts, however we require civility and encourage full names to that end (first initial, last name is OK). Please read our guidelines here before commenting.

  • Nate Bowman

    If Poynter is supposed to be a bastion of journalistic ethics and principles, it is incubent on them to be accurate.

    This is a very simple story. Why make it different than what it is?

    1. I find no reference to “Chink in the Armor” as characterizing Mr. Lin during his college career in the linked HuffPo article.
    2. The HuffPo article claims “The use of the word “chink” is especially galling as Lin has revealed that this racial slur was used to taunt him during his college playing career at Harvard.”. 
    3. The link is to a Time article in which the word “chink” does not even appear.

    Do not misunderstand me. I do NOT condone the slurs. I am sure that some form of racial slurring actually occurred and it is terrible.

    I am decrying the lack of journalism reflected in the Poynter headline. 
    1. The writer (I hesitate to apply “journalist” to this work) misrepresented that somewhere in the linked story the claim that “Chink in the Armor” being applied to Mr. Lin is substantiated. It is not.
    2. The writer did not check the linked claim that the word “chink” was used against Mr. Lin. Mr. Lin only said that racial slurs were used against him.

    This resulted in an unnecessary augmentation of what actually happened.

    This may seem minor but this is Poynter which needs to be held to a higher standard.

    Especially since Poynter felt they needed to push out Jim Romenesko for purportedly similar behavior.