Duke official charged in child sex case

Ya figure?

Also, reporters may not initially ask a person's race or orientation, but police sure as shootin' ought to.

"Is your wife/husband/partner around? We'd like to ask them a few questions. We want to talk to any and all persons who lived in this house."

Finally (and unrelated to the previous discussion), if this guy is innocent of charges, he will surely get a sweet book deal out of all this.

 

Of course this isn't a legal issue, and the SCOTUS has nothing to do with it. Thus the words, "for example". The Supreme Court is an institution that has recognized that race and religion are different than just about anything else, and those were the 2 analogies you brought. Though now that you bring it up, if the guy were Hasidic or Amish or maybe even Mormon I bet it would have been mentioned, and that most of the people arguing with me would have included it.

Again, I am acknowledging that it's not relevant, but saying that similar non-hot button details would have been included, and thus the deliberate exclusion of it is politics getting in the way of journalism.

I think you're wrong, but my only option is to try to scream it louder than you. I would prefer not to. You have more people here who see it your way (on media bias, not gay adoption on which I have no "way"), so I'm just going to leave it at that. I have no horse in this race.

 

So if the parents were known to be a conservative Christians - that wouldn't have made it into the story?

Give me a break, please.

That is where bias is easy to spot -- irrelevant details only seem to be irrelevant when it suits the reporters agenda. And since most reporters are politically correct leftist pinheads......

 

IF....!

A neighbor of mine who is married with two kids is now in jail for trading child porn. In the stories about him, nowhere was it mentioned he was married with two kids, nor was there a line saying, "He is straight." The news was that he traded child porn. The rest was irrelevant.

A pedophile is a pedophile. Whether a person identifies as gay or straight has nothing to do with anything. Unless you're doing a follow-up because the offender was a prominent person in the community, worked with kids, etc. If we're going to make a point of identifying sexual orientation in child-molestation stories, then we'll go both ways. I'm sure those who equate homosexuality with child predator will be shocked to find all the good straight people involved in this crime.

 

I'm calling bullshit -- there wasn't a phrase like "a married father of two" in these stories?

 

No. The links to the stories have expired (his arrest was three years ago), but he was identified as a resident of a particular town, and that he was arrested at his home. The police report probably didn't mention his marital status or how many kids he had. The police didn't care about that -- they were just busting some pedophile.

 

An acquaintance of mine was recently arrested (and pleaded guilty) to similar charges. Every single story has some variation of married father of 2 (or 3, I forget).

 

That was my point.

There needs to be a word for people who are so afraid of homophobia they cry wolf every time someone mentions anything having to do with a homosexual or homosexuals in general that doesn't cast them in a perfectly positive light.

Something like homophobicphobic.....

Because a few of those people are why this thread is four pages long.

One phrase like "parent and his partner(or husband), XXX, adopted this child" in this story that is relevant and is missing because it gives you a fuller picture of the person we are dealing with. It is no different than "a married father of too" a "single man who lives with his parents" or "a teacher's aide who recently graduated"

It gives us context. It has nothing to do with homophobia or bigotry.

And yes, it may cause some bigots to say "see them homos are pedophiles" but our job isn't to appease political correctness.

 

I'd think this piece of garbage WOULD want the fact that he's gay mentioned in the article. Why be bashful now? Gay Pride! Loud and proud! No, shhhhhhh, we have to protect the agenda.

Would you mention it if a serial killer was homosexual? Most are...

 

Still waiting for an actual working journalist to make the case it should have been included.

 

I already have, thank you.

 

Uh, yeah, still waiting. You've been proven a fraud earlier, zag, sorry.