Originally Posted by
Faison1
Not suggesting a thing. Simply wondering out loud, and defending a friend.
Journalism on the whole is suspect these days. Is an article written to increase "clicks", or is it written for a more noble reason like informing the public of something important?
For instance, another acquaintance who serves as a local elected official recently made a mistake and was pulled over for DUI. Our newspaper got ahold of the story and printed, "while we were looking at his history, we noticed he was investigated for sexual misconduct 9 years ago." So, they decided to make it a front page/headline story, "Local Official Previously Accused of Sexual Assault."
The case was settled 5 years ago. The story I heard was he had nothing to do with it. Does that stop a newspaper from printing a headline which turns his family and social life upside down?
(1) There are a lot of factual statements in the Rolling Stone article that either are or are not true, there doesn't seem to be much room for grey. If they are true then I can't imagine a way to spin the story other than in the worst light. If they are false it is a case of some of the worst yellow journalism I have ever seen.
(2) On the tangent topic you raised, any elected who has a prior accusation of sexual misconduct, whether it was unfounded or not, is naive to think it won't come up at some point during his campaign/term
My Quick Smells Like French Toast.