Yes Virginia, Actions DO Have Consequences

[villanelle]

Sounds like he gets his lack of personal responsibility from dear ol' Dad.

"I had to stand by and watch my son plead guilty to something he didn't do," said Jim Strine.

He actually *did* do it. And he certainly didn't *have* to plead guilty. He had ample opportunity and right to enter a not guilty plea and take it to trail. He chose not to do so, likely because there was a very good case against him. But this wasn't some kid who was tortured until he caved and said he was guilty.

 

[VMO4]

Back in the early eighties, when I was reserve enlisted in HML 767, I had a friend in the unit, we had gone to high school together, he got picked up for PLC, did his first summer. One night, walking out of Rosie's, (we were from P'Cola), he gets in a fight with a SNA stud, over a girl. His PLC contract gets pulled, he goes back to drilling to finish his reserve contract. Never knew what happened, if anything , to the stud. To my friend's credit, he never complained about the circumstances, even when he was the 23 year E2 in the unit. He accepted the consequuences of his actions, and went on with life.

 

[Uncle Fester]

I really fucking hate it when people fuck up and say they "made a mistake". You didn't make a mistake, dude, you made a shitty decision. Big difference there.

 

[wink]

Media literacy: look at the byline. It's written by the Associated Press. Reuters and McClatchy do the same thing.

Yes please. Don't want a thread jack here, but this is probably the 4th time in some months someone has bashed Fox News for a print article on their web site, and it was really written by another news outlet. I guess bashing Fox has become a trend. Their performance is clearly open to debate in the proper forum, but slamming Fox for an article with a clear byline not belonging to a Fox reporter makes the critic no better than the worse in the news business. What was that about "getting caught up in the moment"?

 

[Fog]

I really fucking hate it when people fuck up and say they "made a mistake". You didn't make a mistake, dude, you made a shitty decision. Big difference there.

:

. . . and they didn't make a shitty decision: they did something wrong. Let's be clear: not a mistake, not a bad decision, something ethically indefensible.

 

[Spekkio]

Yes please. Don't want a thread jack here, but this is probably the 4th time in some months someone has bashed Fox News for a print article on their web site, and it was really written by another news outlet. I guess bashing Fox has become a trend. Their performance is clearly open to debate in the proper forum, but slamming Fox for an article with a clear byline not belonging to a Fox reporter makes the critic no better than the worse in the news business. What was that about "getting caught up in the moment"?

My comment wasn't a "bash," nor was I "slamming" them; rather, it was merely an observation. Fox News makes plenty of money, so no need to be touchy about it. The fact that they didn't write it explains a bit. Nevertheless, someone who gets paid by Fox News reviewed and posted that story, bias and all.

He actually *did* do it. And he certainly didn't *have* to plead guilty. He had ample opportunity and right to enter a not guilty plea and take it to trail. He chose not to do so, likely because there was a very good case against him. But this wasn't some kid who was tortured until he caved and said he was guilty.

Agree that he did it. I think people miss a key distinction when they say that the legal system "went overboard." Legally, he plead to "criminal mischief," got sentenced to 30 days in jail, 3 years probation, and has to pay for the property he damaged. The jail time might be a little harsh, but I don't know if anyone can legitimately say it's "overboard." His suspension from college and expulsion from ROTC are not legal system punishments; they are actions taken by other organizations that do not want to be associated with people who participate in riots over a coach being fired.

 

[wink]

... Nevertheless, someone who gets paid by Fox News reviewed and posted that story, bias and all.

So it is a slam. Maybe whoever reviewed it looked at it about as thoroughly as you did. Then again, there are legalities, rules, about what you edit from a wire service article. What is your excuse?

 

[Spekkio]

A slam would be saying something like "Fox News is terrible." Noting that Fox News has some kind of responsibility for spreading a poorly written article is not a slam.

My excuse is that I don't get paid to review articles for a website, so I really didn't care who wrote it. The Fox News banner caught my eye much more than the byline that the article was obtained from the AP, another intentional design decision from someone who gets paid by Fox News.

 

[C420sailor]

Yes please. Don't want a thread jack here, but this is probably the 4th time in some months someone has bashed Fox News for a print article on their web site, and it was really written by another news outlet. I guess bashing Fox has become a trend. Their performance is clearly open to debate in the proper forum, but slamming Fox for an article with a clear byline not belonging to a Fox reporter makes the critic no better than the worse in the news business. What was that about "getting caught up in the moment"?

Maybe they should be more careful about what they put on their website? I would think that a news outlet would be responsible for everything they published on their site, regardless of who created the content.

 

[MIDNJAC]

Fox is AW's slam pig

 

[KBayDog]

Wow, you guys are 'Stuck on Stupid' tonight.

Here you go - KBay being Fair and Balanced:

NBC
ABC
Huffington Post

 

[wink]

A slam would be saying something like "Fox News is terrible." Noting that Fox News has some kind of responsibility for spreading a poorly written article is not a slam.

My excuse is that I don't get paid to review articles for a website, so I really didn't care who wrote it.

So, you have to be paid to show some attention to detail and take responsibility for wrongfully attributing something to another. That is good to know. Thanks. You seemed to care who wrote it when you thought it was Fox, or you wouldn't have mentioned it.

The Fox News banner caught my eye much more than the byline that the article was obtained from the AP, another intentional design decision from someone who gets paid by Fox News.

That says it all. A Fox News banner automatically meant something negative to you. So much so you skipped the byline, something I learned to start with in a high school English class. You have a bias. That is fine. Just make sure you are correct about your facts.

 

[wink]

Wow, you guys are 'Stuck on Stupid' tonight.

Here you go - KBay being Fair and Balanced:

NBC
ABC
Huffington Post

You miss the point. I am not defending Fox. We have had that debate before (Huffington are you kidding). I am demanding just a little attention to detail. Being sure of your target. A little honesty about ones biases would be nice too( Huffington, really). Oh and I haven't played with Spekkio for maybe a year. Old times and all.

 

[KBayDog]

You miss the point.

No, I've got the point...in fact, I'm demonstrating the attention to detail that' you're demanding.

 

[Gatordev]

You miss the point. I am not defending Fox. We have had that debate before (Huffington are you kidding). I am demanding just a little attention to detail. Being sure of your target. A little honesty about ones biases would be nice too( Huffington, really). Oh and I haven't played with Spekkio for maybe a year. Old times and all.

For the record, my response wasn't meant to bash Fox specifically, but all of the major cable outlets. Ironically enough, the very reason they frustrate me IS there lack of attention to detail.