ICBM
King Koopa
Didn't know we did status updates here now
Posts: 12,288
|
Post by ICBM on Jan 1, 2016 12:28:11 GMT -5
I am not calling him innocent in any way shape or form, but I agree the court of public opinion on any case is unfair and longer lasting than any sentence Other than death
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Jan 1, 2016 12:37:41 GMT -5
Then you should know that reporting standards and a thread on a random discussion board are not one and the same. I really don't know what you're arguing for here? The article reports the arrest and the known facts involved, letting people come to their own conclusions. It's not like WaPo is saying "He's an inhuman kiddie f***er who deserves to fry!" There's nothing at all in that article that comes off as libelous. Would you not want them to report on his arrest and charges at all? Because I think that's a far more egregious offense. The press has the duty to inform the public and waiting for a guilty verdict to report anything is incredibly irresponsible. My response is to the story being reported, not it being posted, I've no issue whatsoever with the thread itself, and I apologise if that's how it came off because I'm really not getting at anybody on here whatsoever. And frankly, yes that's exactly what I would do, because if you have been tried of something and found not guilty, then you didn't do it. Sex crime stuff in particular really doesn't wash off no matter what the verdict was. I don't think the public has the right to know that someone was accused of something it turns out they didn't do. Has no-one ever started a rumour about you, or accused you of something you didn't do? Has that followed you around forever, been in the public eye, affected every job you ever attempted to get? Actually, I am a journalist, and shit like this is exactly why I don't work in news any more. What exactly would constitute news if you didn't report shit before people were found guilty, exactly? Sorry Woodward and Bernstein, they weren't found guilty yet you better wait for the trial before you report it. If there is an issue with corrupt government officials, faulty convictions or exonerations or anything like that, it isn't a problem with journalism, it is a problem with that corruption. If you take the person being accused out of it, this ceases to be a matter of public interest unless and until he is convicted. 'MAN IS ACCUSED OF SOMETHING' should not be news. 'MAN IS CONVICTED OF SOMETHING' should be. This is an issue with the entire way that news has worked for decades anyway, this is just one more case of it happening.
|
|
El Pollo Guerrera
Grimlock
His name has chicken in it, and he is good at makin' .gifs, so that's cool.
Status: Runner
Posts: 14,711
|
Post by El Pollo Guerrera on Jan 1, 2016 12:55:58 GMT -5
Agreed, but 'MAN ARRESTED, CHARGED WITH SOMETHING' should still be news, since it presumes the police has done enough of an investigation in the case to justify the pressing of those charges.
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Jan 1, 2016 13:26:57 GMT -5
Agreed, but 'MAN ARRESTED, CHARGED WITH SOMETHING' should still be news, since it presumes the police has done enough of an investigation in the case to justify the pressing of those charges. Well, you and I disagree there, but I think to delve too far into it would end up on the political side of discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Some Guy on Jan 1, 2016 14:40:41 GMT -5
Agreed, but 'MAN ARRESTED, CHARGED WITH SOMETHING' should still be news, since it presumes the police has done enough of an investigation in the case to justify the pressing of those charges. Well, you and I disagree there, but I think to delve too far into it would end up on the political side of discussion. I don't see how that's political. It's reportable news when someone is charged with a crime, I don't see how you can disagree with that. Charges don't exactly come on a whim.
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Jan 1, 2016 15:00:23 GMT -5
Well, you and I disagree there, but I think to delve too far into it would end up on the political side of discussion. I don't see how that's political. It's reportable news when someone is charged with a crime, I don't see how you can disagree with that. Charges don't exactly come on a whim. It gets political when you start discussing how trustworthy and/or corrupt and/or racist the police or the institutions they work for are, and even if that isn't political, I've found that every time someone on here says 'at the risk of getting too close to the politics rule' the thread tends to get locked pretty soon after. Anyway, in the UK as an example, Cliff Richard's house was raided, on television. The press were told, he wasn't, meaning the BBC knew about the search (and broadcast it live) before he did. He still hasn't been charged, or arrested. One case has been dropped entirely. We should not know this. That stink doesn't wash off. Even if I was to accept someone being charged - which in a justice system which was 100% right about its convictions would probably be fine, but it isn't, anywhere - was reportable, he hasn't even been charged, but the press knew about it before he did, about a crime as sensitive as that one. As far as I'm concerned, the report should come after the case is closed, regardless of what the verdict is. It's not that it isn't newsworthy that someone has been charged (although depending on the crime, and where the crime is, it will vary in its newsworthiness) it's the cost to their reputation and personal lives which for some people can end up being irreparable. Personal ethics versus journalistic ethics. I'm aware this is largely contradictory to the typical journalistic attitude, which again, is why I don't work in news.
|
|
El Pollo Guerrera
Grimlock
His name has chicken in it, and he is good at makin' .gifs, so that's cool.
Status: Runner
Posts: 14,711
|
Post by El Pollo Guerrera on Jan 1, 2016 15:35:27 GMT -5
I don't see how that's political. It's reportable news when someone is charged with a crime, I don't see how you can disagree with that. Charges don't exactly come on a whim. It gets political when you start discussing how trustworthy and/or corRichardsand/or racist the police or the institutions they work for are, and even if that isn't political, I've found that every time someone on here says 'at the risk of getting too close to the politics rule' the thread tends to get locked pretty soon after. Anyway, in the UK as an example, Cliff Richard's house was raided, on television. The press were told, he wasn't, meaning the BBC knew about the search (and broadcast it live) before he did. He still hasn't been charged, or arrested. One case has been dropped entirely. We should not know this. That stink doesn't wash off. Even if I was to accept someone being charged - which in a justice system which was 100% right about its convictions would probably be fine, but it isn't, anywhere - was reportable, he hasn't even been charged, but the press knew about it before he did, about a crime as sensitive as that one. As far as I'm concerned, the report should come after the case is closed, regardless of what the verdict is. It's not that it isn't newsworthy that someone has been charged (although depending on the crime, and where the crime is, it will vary in its newsworthiness) it's the cost to their reputation and personal lives which for some people can end up being irreparable. Personal ethics versus journalistic ethics. I'm aware this is largely contradictory to the typical journalistic attitude, which again, is why I don't work in news. In that instance, I believe that you are 100% correct, there's no way that the press should have known about the raid... but if Richards HAD been charged with a crime stemming from that search, then that fact should be considered news (and not the search itself). Also, if Richards had NOT been charged with anything stemming from that search, the story in the news should be "why are the authorities harassing Cliff Richards?" Ageee to disagree?
|
|
|
Post by "Gizzark" Mike Wronglevenay on Jan 1, 2016 15:39:06 GMT -5
It gets political when you start discussing how trustworthy and/or corRichardsand/or racist the police or the institutions they work for are, and even if that isn't political, I've found that every time someone on here says 'at the risk of getting too close to the politics rule' the thread tends to get locked pretty soon after. Anyway, in the UK as an example, Cliff Richard's house was raided, on television. The press were told, he wasn't, meaning the BBC knew about the search (and broadcast it live) before he did. He still hasn't been charged, or arrested. One case has been dropped entirely. We should not know this. That stink doesn't wash off. Even if I was to accept someone being charged - which in a justice system which was 100% right about its convictions would probably be fine, but it isn't, anywhere - was reportable, he hasn't even been charged, but the press knew about it before he did, about a crime as sensitive as that one. As far as I'm concerned, the report should come after the case is closed, regardless of what the verdict is. It's not that it isn't newsworthy that someone has been charged (although depending on the crime, and where the crime is, it will vary in its newsworthiness) it's the cost to their reputation and personal lives which for some people can end up being irreparable. Personal ethics versus journalistic ethics. I'm aware this is largely contradictory to the typical journalistic attitude, which again, is why I don't work in news. In that instance, I believe that you are 100% correct, there's no way that the press should have known about the raid... but if Richards HAD been charged with a crime stemming from that search, then that fact should be considered news (and not the search itself). Also, if Richards had NOT been charged with anything stemming from that search, the story in the news should be "why are the authorities harassing Cliff Richards?" Ageee to disagree? I already agreed to disagree with you, sir I was responding to Ron. But yeah it isn't me saying something isn't newsworthy so much as that I think ethics should take priority over what qualifies as news.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2016 16:07:32 GMT -5
And I thought he was just an untalented actor
|
|