Tom Groat
@tomrg.bsky.social
Reporter for my local newspaper, former teacher. Used to be Shazom123 on the bird site. History, politics, football, TV and plenty of random stuff.
2 followed by 1.
Was not aware of 3.
Also, I’m a man. But is this not traditionally a man’s job?
Was not aware of 3.
Also, I’m a man. But is this not traditionally a man’s job?
January 10, 2026 at 11:22 AM
2 followed by 1.
Was not aware of 3.
Also, I’m a man. But is this not traditionally a man’s job?
Was not aware of 3.
Also, I’m a man. But is this not traditionally a man’s job?
Spot on. Seems a fairy sensible consumer right these days given how much is now sold on a subscription model.
January 10, 2026 at 11:15 AM
Spot on. Seems a fairy sensible consumer right these days given how much is now sold on a subscription model.
All subscriptions should require you to okay an email every three months or they automatically cancel. If a party ran on this it would get my vote.
January 10, 2026 at 7:34 AM
All subscriptions should require you to okay an email every three months or they automatically cancel. If a party ran on this it would get my vote.
Was the re-election the turning point. The mass deportations, the corruption, the cut backs… it was all known and yet that’s what they voted for - or at least didn’t vote against.
I think at that point many organisations just shrugged and went, well this is what the people want.
I think at that point many organisations just shrugged and went, well this is what the people want.
January 9, 2026 at 8:57 AM
Was the re-election the turning point. The mass deportations, the corruption, the cut backs… it was all known and yet that’s what they voted for - or at least didn’t vote against.
I think at that point many organisations just shrugged and went, well this is what the people want.
I think at that point many organisations just shrugged and went, well this is what the people want.
I still think that counts as curating your thread, as though she was dealing with comments on Facebook, and have no real issue with it. If her journalistic work brought people to the thread she is within her rights. She said you could find it if you wanted.
January 8, 2026 at 9:38 PM
I still think that counts as curating your thread, as though she was dealing with comments on Facebook, and have no real issue with it. If her journalistic work brought people to the thread she is within her rights. She said you could find it if you wanted.
Any idea what the roads are like?
January 8, 2026 at 6:39 AM
Any idea what the roads are like?
That is certainly how it has been explained to me. I might have got it wrong earlier. Thanks.
January 7, 2026 at 10:40 PM
That is certainly how it has been explained to me. I might have got it wrong earlier. Thanks.
But they don’t - journalism isn’t a monoculture, it isn’t a single block.
They were all pre eyed with the same dilemma and made different decisions - just what should happen and what you would expect.
They were all pre eyed with the same dilemma and made different decisions - just what should happen and what you would expect.
January 7, 2026 at 10:39 PM
But they don’t - journalism isn’t a monoculture, it isn’t a single block.
They were all pre eyed with the same dilemma and made different decisions - just what should happen and what you would expect.
They were all pre eyed with the same dilemma and made different decisions - just what should happen and what you would expect.
And one issue (albeit a small one) is they haven’t really been given weapons training.
January 7, 2026 at 10:37 PM
And one issue (albeit a small one) is they haven’t really been given weapons training.
She also said it’s easily accessible, just not on her thread.
She hid that post - but even told you she had done that and where you could find the video if you wanted.
It’s not censorship.
She hid that post - but even told you she had done that and where you could find the video if you wanted.
It’s not censorship.
January 7, 2026 at 10:22 PM
She also said it’s easily accessible, just not on her thread.
She hid that post - but even told you she had done that and where you could find the video if you wanted.
It’s not censorship.
She hid that post - but even told you she had done that and where you could find the video if you wanted.
It’s not censorship.
I’m afraid that’s just not true. If she is working as a journalist here, not a private individual, she has the right to curate her thread, just as a news org can curate its comments.
It’s not censorship unless she was trying to make sure you never saw or did not know about the video.
It’s not censorship unless she was trying to make sure you never saw or did not know about the video.
January 7, 2026 at 10:19 PM
I’m afraid that’s just not true. If she is working as a journalist here, not a private individual, she has the right to curate her thread, just as a news org can curate its comments.
It’s not censorship unless she was trying to make sure you never saw or did not know about the video.
It’s not censorship unless she was trying to make sure you never saw or did not know about the video.
They certainly try to hide it, divert attention.
“Prayers for those who are now angles, gun training for the staff… etc”
How they present the evidence, where they focus the thoughts and images is very important.
“Prayers for those who are now angles, gun training for the staff… etc”
How they present the evidence, where they focus the thoughts and images is very important.
January 7, 2026 at 10:17 PM
They certainly try to hide it, divert attention.
“Prayers for those who are now angles, gun training for the staff… etc”
How they present the evidence, where they focus the thoughts and images is very important.
“Prayers for those who are now angles, gun training for the staff… etc”
How they present the evidence, where they focus the thoughts and images is very important.
Yes. Now the weight for showing the video is greater. But that is because of what has occurred since. Now the damage to the family, the dignity of the dead has to be weighed against lies from the POTUS.
It’s all part of the process for making the decision.
It’s all part of the process for making the decision.
January 7, 2026 at 10:15 PM
Yes. Now the weight for showing the video is greater. But that is because of what has occurred since. Now the damage to the family, the dignity of the dead has to be weighed against lies from the POTUS.
It’s all part of the process for making the decision.
It’s all part of the process for making the decision.
But that’s *why* she needs to curate her thread, because she is here as a journalist, so consideration of these questions have to be made.
She *has* to think of sensitive users, she *has* to think of family members. That’s the ethics of the profession.
She *has* to think of sensitive users, she *has* to think of family members. That’s the ethics of the profession.
January 7, 2026 at 10:13 PM
But that’s *why* she needs to curate her thread, because she is here as a journalist, so consideration of these questions have to be made.
She *has* to think of sensitive users, she *has* to think of family members. That’s the ethics of the profession.
She *has* to think of sensitive users, she *has* to think of family members. That’s the ethics of the profession.
I have not seen it, and I don’t think I would ever want to. I don’t need it to be against legalised weapons of war.
I’m aware this exists, but I was not aware it was widely shared.
I’m aware this exists, but I was not aware it was widely shared.
January 7, 2026 at 10:11 PM
I have not seen it, and I don’t think I would ever want to. I don’t need it to be against legalised weapons of war.
I’m aware this exists, but I was not aware it was widely shared.
I’m aware this exists, but I was not aware it was widely shared.
Having said that just seen the Trump statement and now it is more difficult not to show the footage.
But that is the nature of breaking and developing news.
But that is the nature of breaking and developing news.
January 7, 2026 at 10:09 PM
Having said that just seen the Trump statement and now it is more difficult not to show the footage.
But that is the nature of breaking and developing news.
But that is the nature of breaking and developing news.
Which would be a very strong reason for showing the aftermath of a school shooting.
I am not suggesting the video should not be shared, but I can understand why some would chose not to or have it on their thread.
I am not suggesting the video should not be shared, but I can understand why some would chose not to or have it on their thread.
January 7, 2026 at 10:09 PM
Which would be a very strong reason for showing the aftermath of a school shooting.
I am not suggesting the video should not be shared, but I can understand why some would chose not to or have it on their thread.
I am not suggesting the video should not be shared, but I can understand why some would chose not to or have it on their thread.
This is her curating her thread, as a website may edit / delete comments. I don’t have an issue with this, especially when she says it’s available elsewhere.
January 7, 2026 at 10:06 PM
This is her curating her thread, as a website may edit / delete comments. I don’t have an issue with this, especially when she says it’s available elsewhere.
That would not the be argument here. The argument about showing school shootings to to show what happens to a child hit by an assault weapon, at a time when the authorities may well be saying “hopes and prayers” or “we need more guns.”
It’s about pushing back against entrenched power.
It’s about pushing back against entrenched power.
January 7, 2026 at 9:53 PM
That would not the be argument here. The argument about showing school shootings to to show what happens to a child hit by an assault weapon, at a time when the authorities may well be saying “hopes and prayers” or “we need more guns.”
It’s about pushing back against entrenched power.
It’s about pushing back against entrenched power.
I intended it as an example of the sort of consideration that has to be taken when showing an image.
The post provides the information that contradicts the Gov. line. That can be done without the video.
Allowing the video on her thread is a decision the journalist then has to make.
The post provides the information that contradicts the Gov. line. That can be done without the video.
Allowing the video on her thread is a decision the journalist then has to make.
January 7, 2026 at 9:51 PM
I intended it as an example of the sort of consideration that has to be taken when showing an image.
The post provides the information that contradicts the Gov. line. That can be done without the video.
Allowing the video on her thread is a decision the journalist then has to make.
The post provides the information that contradicts the Gov. line. That can be done without the video.
Allowing the video on her thread is a decision the journalist then has to make.
I also understand the power of the image - if picture of dead kids following school shootings (which exist) where published it could have real political effect.
But do you do that to the families?
But do you do that to the families?
January 7, 2026 at 9:41 PM
I also understand the power of the image - if picture of dead kids following school shootings (which exist) where published it could have real political effect.
But do you do that to the families?
But do you do that to the families?
It’s a highly emotive subject, but most journalists will have been in the situation where they’ve published pictures or film of fatalities and then had to explain that to grieving families.
Be it a car accident, shooting, etc.
It’s a really complex issue.
Be it a car accident, shooting, etc.
It’s a really complex issue.
January 7, 2026 at 9:39 PM
It’s a highly emotive subject, but most journalists will have been in the situation where they’ve published pictures or film of fatalities and then had to explain that to grieving families.
Be it a car accident, shooting, etc.
It’s a really complex issue.
Be it a car accident, shooting, etc.
It’s a really complex issue.
Given the nature of this site and other less regulated ones I do feel what she did was a sensible choice. Whether it’s one I would have made - I don’t know. Is it the one you wanted? No. But it was a logical journalistic choice.
January 7, 2026 at 9:37 PM
Given the nature of this site and other less regulated ones I do feel what she did was a sensible choice. Whether it’s one I would have made - I don’t know. Is it the one you wanted? No. But it was a logical journalistic choice.
I understand it’s a highly emotional story - but that’s why more care is needed.
I don’t know what I would have done in the situation, but I understand her choice not to promote the film.
Her journalistic integrity should not be questioned by people who have not considered these issues.
I don’t know what I would have done in the situation, but I understand her choice not to promote the film.
Her journalistic integrity should not be questioned by people who have not considered these issues.
January 7, 2026 at 9:36 PM
I understand it’s a highly emotional story - but that’s why more care is needed.
I don’t know what I would have done in the situation, but I understand her choice not to promote the film.
Her journalistic integrity should not be questioned by people who have not considered these issues.
I don’t know what I would have done in the situation, but I understand her choice not to promote the film.
Her journalistic integrity should not be questioned by people who have not considered these issues.