I ask again, what damage was done by Roseanne's tweet that was not done by its proliferation in media reports about it? I think this is an important point to consider. I'm not defending the comment, I'm criticizing the basis for its power/harm.
If the comment itself is harmful, why is it being spread beyond its original influence? If the comment is not harmful in itself, but rather the context or intent is important, why is there so little room for explanation? Why is it willfully obtuse to question the intent or context? If it's the context/intent that matters, shouldn't we examine the context/intent? The intent seems to be assumed by the very comment itself. The fact that it was made proves its insensitive, perhaps malicious intent. But that seems to indicate the comment is inherintly powerful regardless of intent. If this is the case, why can a media report the comment, introducing it to more people than those who were originally aware of it, without criticism?
Note: I don't expect anyone to truly care about this. But I think the discussion would be beneficial and ultimately more powerful than the comment, no matter its intent, could ever be.