For help here is the definition Nonsensical: Foolish; absurd
It is not absurd or foolish to state that a reporters job is to report news. The news chosen to report is based on what sells. Therefore, if people do not care or enjoy this type of writing there would not be any..do you get it now?
Haha..libel and slander..tell me the facts you know as of now, and tell me what the reporter wrote.
What is your suggestion for changing the media? Who would regulate it and how?
In the eyes of the insightful the media may look bad, but what does that insight do without a coherent or realistic way to change it?
So basically you say something is bad without having any way of changing...I think that fits a lil better with the definition of nonsensical.
Edited for SRC's post: Fair assement..I agree to a point with accountability. But for the others stating the media is the root of all evil and should realize that the media is a possible way to keep the government and judicial branch in check.
I would repeat, that I would gladly take 100 of these articles for one bringing to light an important social topic
...as long as it is not you the media is inaccurately crucifying.
Are you serious? You're mad because a guy writes an editorial that uses what Dukes did as a jumping off point to talk about spousal abuse? Big deal- he calls Dukes a bully- that's his right. Nowhere does he say that Dukes is guilty, just accused. Please- next time someone from the Red Sox or Yankees or any other big-market team does something bad off the field, check out the editorials in those local papers. Whatever other info you have on Dukes that makes what he did sound better than everything I've heard- please share it with us. We know what the guy is accused of and there's some pretty good evidence to go along with it. I'm glad the writers are scorching him.
You do not know, and do not ever call me a facist again. I am a public defender and work my ass off for people like Duke.
You do not know me and do not know what I do...I have an opinion and that does not make me a fascist..it makes me a person, if you have nothing to offer, than do not respond any longer
But how do you know that what's reported is inaccurate? You have inside info? If so, could you please share it with us so we can form a balanced opinion?
And as an aside, beyond debating what is true or not, the Devil Rays' financial fortunes should be the least of any media's concerns.
HipHipJorge wrote:Chrisy your ignorance is astounding.
You do not know, and do not ever call me a facist again. I am a public defender and work my ass off for people like Duke.
You do not know me and do not know what I do...I have an opinion and that does not make me a fascist..it makes me a person, if you have nothing to offer, than do not respond any longer
No need, this says it all:
OK, I gonna try this one more time. 1+1=2. All the time. Very easy to grasp.
I am faulting the tampa reporters for NOT doing their job. Creating a fiction of an article(s) by selectively omitting key relevant facts is bad enough.
Basing such misrepresentations as the foundation for ruining a person's career (with the resultant effects of consequence to innocent children), is over the line.
Compounding matters is that even in the face of new evidence, the tampa media continues to run with the story. No retractions. No apologies. No recognition of the new facts that have come to light.
Is this the type of journalism you want?
Journalism that ruins careers, without fair and accurate reporting?
No, what I (and all of us) should demand is, if you choose to hold the responsibilities that come with reporting, responsibilities that require that you get a story right, than either you do it, or there's consequences.
That's not regulating. It's called accountability. If I screwed up my job the way the Tampa media has screwed up this story I would have been fired a long time ago.
NWSoxaholic wrote:Are you serious? You're mad because a guy writes an editorial that uses what Dukes did as a jumping off point to talk about spousal abuse? Big deal- he calls Dukes a bully- that's his right. Nowhere does he say that Dukes is guilty, just accused. Please- next time someone from the Red Sox or Yankees or any other big-market team does something bad off the field, check out the editorials in those local papers. Whatever other info you have on Dukes that makes what he did sound better than everything I've heard- please share it with us. We know what the guy is accused of and there's some pretty good evidence to go along with it. I'm glad the writers are scorching him.
Again, rationalizing irresponsibility.
I suggest you read the article again. In sum and substance, Dukes is the poster child for spousal abuse, with real victims of spousal abuse offering sympathetic advice to the "alleged" victim, the ex-wife.
It is a travesty and disgusting leap to judgment to equate the Dukes matter and proven cases of spousal abuse, as if they are the same.
Here's a newsflash-Dukes has not been convicted of anything, no less being labeled by a reckless beat writer as a bully. Any meaningul basis to opine that Dukes is a "bully"?
Oh, I forgot. The basis of the bully comment is apparently the product of a divorce attorney's strategy.
Congratulations. You're sucked in, hooked, top to bottom.
You wish to believe the guy is guilty so bad you can't see that this writer violated the very basics of journalistic integrity. A well crafted, manipulated article using a real victim of spousal abuse to manipulate your emotions. Disgusting, and quite frankly, obscene would be my personal take on exploiting and comparing real victims of spousal abuse to the Dukes matter, when evidence exists to the contrary.
Cafe Home
Fantasy Football
Fantasy Basketball
Fantasy Hockey
by scr » Sat May 26, 2007 3:55 pm 
