Here and There ... and Back Again
Brand Selvia

A victory for the press

Posted Thursday, August 1, 2019, at 11:33 AM
View 2 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • *

    Being "first" versus being "right" may be a fine line that journalists have to walk, but that is one that they choose to walk and must take the hits when they do it wrong.

    The Washington Post - along with many other media outlets - allowed themselves to be convinced of the rightness of the story b/c it fit with their own biases.

    This led to threats of violence against the student, his family, and his entire school.

    Then the truth came out... but after the damage was done.

    The Post printed the "fuller picture" story three days after their initial covering despite the more complete video being accessible the day after the incident.

    Nor did the Post, it seems, make any attempt to get the other side of the story when they were breaking it.

    The Post has been widely excoriated for their handling of this story, along with other media outlets, and rightfully so. It is general consensus that they were wrong. Just plain wrong.

    There are a bunch of crazy people in this world. The Post cannot rile them up, point to an innocent person to be targeted, and then try to wash their hands of any culpability under the guise of journalism.

    In regards to the lawsuit itself: It is currently being appealed by the Sandmann's, and there is some question as to the legitimacy of the dismissal. In a brief perusing of several articles that discuss the dismissal it seems that this judge has taken upon himself to be the decider of fact (what is) versus being a decider of the law (what the law says). Since the Sandmann's asked for a jury trial, it should be up to the jury, not the judge, to decide the facts. At least it is this way in Indiana law. Kentucky law may differ.

    Also, I am curious as to what exactly do you see that is SINISTER (your word) in the Sandmann's actions? Trying to find redress for a perceived wrong? Or that they had the gall to call for an accounting of a newspaper (along with other media) that is blatantly partisan and by way of that partisanship jeopardized the welfare and safety of innocents?

    Don't look now, but your own leftist feelings are starting to show.

    -- Posted by dreadpirateroberts on Thu, Aug 1, 2019, at 5:00 PM
  • Of course, this would be your position. The media wants free reign to do whatever they desire, regardless of the facts.

    Being first when wrong is not being first. It is being wrong. In essence, no matter who the person who is being misreported about is, your "right" to be first is more important than misrepresenting that person.

    What an awful business model.

    -- Posted by beg on Fri, Aug 2, 2019, at 8:11 AM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: