Of course, Eric Brantley's past had nothing to do with his killing. But the P&C wrote an article specifically — specifically — about the parallels between EB and his alleged killers and then failed to note an additional parallel; after all, they mention one alleged killer's misdemeanor drug arrest. That he took responsibility for his life, as you said, is key to the story. It only makes him a stronger, better person. None of what I said is to excuse their actions bc their actions are inexcusable. I appreciate the love that so many feel for their friend. I do. But reporting is about honesty, and like I said, while I wouldn't have taken the parallel lives tract or advised my writers to do so, the P&C did and then offered an incomplete parallel narrative.
Adding Eric Brantley as a side note to your article is disgraceful. Two armed men shot and killed Eric Brantley (unarmed and innocent). Eric's past had nothing to do with his killing. He didn't initiate the violence; they did. Shame on you using a man's death to make a name for yourself. The parallels that the Post and Courier drew was that they came from similar backgrounds growing up. Eric chose to take responsibility for his life while the other two men did little or nothing to better themselves. They took his life. Period. Utterly disappointed in the lack of better judgement from the paper's editor. Soft bigotry, really!
Bill and Ella, I appreciate your sadness over your friend's passing. It saddens me too. The P&C wrote an article that drew parallels between Eric Brantley and his alleged killers. I didn't do that, and I surely wouldn't have in the way they did if I had. From a narrative point of view, and one of factual reporting, the arrest omission should not have happened, if you're trying to draw parallels. Many of us have been arrested for similar things — some of us have drunk driving convictions, some of us drug convictions while some of us simply never got caught for those things. The point is, the P&C was attempting to draw parallels and they apparently never once considered EB might have an arrest record. But like I said, I wouldn't have taken that approach, but I do believe this failure to consider that he might have one is rooted in a soft bigotry.
Hold on, are you talking about Emily or me? Emily, right, since Jack was her guitarist and she paid him? Wait, wait, you mean me? Jack, one, wasn't my employee; he was a freelance columnist prior to my arrival at the paper. Two, while I chatted with Jack briefly at AC's on a few occasions when I would stop in at lunch, I would not have considered him a friend, just a professional colleague. He's a very nice man and an extremely hard worker and I agreed with many of his foreign policy views — being an anti-war, anti-interventionalist guy after all — and his libertarian streak — I lean heavily libertarian on the Democratic spectrum. I admire those things about him. However, I admire even more his willingness to apologize for his old racist ways. I believe he is sincere, and I wish him the absolute best in all of his endeavors. That said, the Post and Courier should have never allowed Jack to write about a friend.
Chris Haire.... Why does Byron keep beating you for "Charleston's best bum" in the city paper awards? Don't you work there?
Eat shit you prick.
What makes you think you can take your assigned story about a musician (I think... Your writing is painfully boring) and twist it to include Eric Brantley? You are a disgusting human being to grasp straws to this point just to be heard. Your opinion doesn't matter. And this article is shit.
You are an idiot sir. To compare my friend's misdemeanour charge for posession of marijuana to the criminal records of the scumbag low lives that murdered him in cold blood is highly offensive, which i can only guess is your intention. Both of those guys have charges for weapons distribution, aggravated assault and one has attempted murder. Eric was worth a million of them. Hopefully they will rot in jail for the rest of their miserable lives.
Probably shouldn't use the Hunter defense, since he was both your employee and your friend.
Excellent, excellent piece, Mr. Haire!
Now, what about Charles Waring's Charleston Mercury? That rag still promotes the 1950s white mindset.
Hey Emily. I see you're a long-time fan. Since we're on the subject of ethics, I do find it curious that your dear friend and bandmate Jack Hunter wrote a profile of you for the Post and Courier without disclosing those things.
We knew Chris Haire was a liar, spineless coward, and unethical editor, why not a thief too? Fitting!
"Hey!!! I went fishing the other & caught a couple of little minnows...without bait & but with some common sense. The libs bit & reputed with their practiced script. It's so apparent that their thought pattern is like a mental disorder. Common sense dialogue is not recognized."
Translation: "I have absolutely nothing to back up my ridiculous assertions from the previous post, nor with which to counter the information presented to counter my ridiculous assertions. So I will resort to some half-formed sentences and patented right-wing tripe replies about 'liberals' and their thought patterns and congratulate myself on 'winning' another one for the power elite."
Nice work, sir. Totally sick burn on your part. You absolutely demolished me with your nuanced and well-researched comeback. I can absolutely see why you were in circulation and not editorial.
Hey!!! I went fishing the other & caught a couple of little minnows...without bait & but with some common sense. The libs bit & reputed with their practiced script. It's so apparent that their thought pattern is like a mental disorder. Common sense dialogue is not recognized.
I usually ride elevators without any confidence whatsoever, so congrats on that.
As bflosue noted, you can bypass the Post and Courier's paywall by using the P&C's very own app.
I mean, that's cruel. What kind of sick monster steals from their own?
Next : How to shoplift at Wally World.
Since stealing seems to be OK here
'I would guess this author likes Bernie Sanders...you know free stuff!'
Hey dipshit, the things Bernie wants to provide aren't 'free,' they would paid for by properly taxing the richest Americans at pre-Reagan rates.
"I've been a circulation director for a national newspaper for 23 years. Newspaper revenue has been on the decline since 2008. The Post & Courier pays their employees to write articles.They need to charge their readers in order to meet their expenses.I would guess this author likes Bernie Sanders...you know free stuff! To take this authors intended logic a step forward, I imagine he wouldn't mind if his readers visited his publication's office & helped themselves to office supplies.
Sort of like redistribution."
This is such a load of crap, it isn't even funny.
Revenue from newspaper subscriptions largely pay for production and delivery costs. Subscription revenue does not pay for reporters.
What pays for reporters (and editors, and publishers) is ad revenue.
Ad revenue was declining well before 2008 and for a number of reasons not related to the economy. First, lots of newspapers were slow to figure out the internet - and once they did, they found out that their advertisers had found out a lot more and quicker. It was no longer good enough for the paper to say, "Well, we have 50,000 subscribers and we sell about 10,000 a day out of boxes, so your ad might be seen by 60,000 - 100,000 people a day" because advertisers could now get an idea of not only how many people saw their ads, but how many people clicked on those ads. Why pay for the chance your ad will be seen when you can just pay for how many times it is seen?
Guess what? People weren't clicking on ads. So, a lot of papers (and most sites, honestly) started making those ads bigger, or animated, and later as pop-ups and pop-unders, and all sorts of other ways of annoying the crap out of the consumer.
And revenues still fell. And ad-blocking software became a thing (largely because, surprise, surprise, sites realized that even if they couldn't get people to click on ads, they could still find ways to gather data from their visitors and sell it to third-parties).
Worse, in the early days newspapers weren't charging people to visit their websites, so if people oddly enough might feel slightly frustrated having to suddenly pay to access these sites, it wouldn't be surprising. Now, Mr. fantonuc wants to compare the notion of bypassing a paywall to the utterly fatuous idea that Senator Sanders is in favor of "free stuff" (which, if you'd like, I'd gladly point out how that's also a load of crap) - and that's fine, even if it's nonsense. I'd actually compare the newspapers suddenly charging for admission to the corner drug dealer: "Here, kids, try this for free. Yea, that's right, now you're hooked, so pay me."
Basically, the notion that bypassing the Post and Courier's paywall is somehow stealing food from the mouths of reporters is absolute poppycock.
It's only a matter of time before the for-profit press collapses (anyone else get daily pleading emails from the New York Times, for instance?) and we get around to establishing proper non-profit news outlets that aren't reliant on ad revenue in the first place.
Oh, and speaking of ad-blockers, if you have one installed and no how to use it properly you don't have to go through all of the steps listed in this piece to read the Post and Courier.
"Currently the mobile app is still free with no paywall."
That's true enough, and I haven't looked into this fully to be certain, but I'll bet you a dollar that they're using that app to track you and either target ads toward you, or sell your data to a third-party.
See, the thing is, even a grumpy anti-capitalist like me knows there's no such thing as a free lunch, and there's no such thing as free access to a paid site just because you have their app.
They sounded like little kids in middle school venting their bad behavior. Just don't look good to listen too on old-er people. Whitney sounds like babbling drunk who is too old to be trashing any person he formally slept with and then lied about it. I would have balked at that story line and wrote my own lines. Makes Whitney sound like he is not carrying a torch for Kathryn but instead carrying a torch for Thomas and seems to get infuriated with any time spent with Kathryn and being in a father role.
I only found it disturbing that Kathryn threw her life away with having children with Thomas. A smart attractive girl who I do not get would look at the old man twice. Plus he looks like the former governor --you know the one that said he was going for a hike
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2016,
Charleston City Paper