1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Duke official charged in child sex case

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by YankeeFan, Jun 26, 2009.

  1. Guy_Incognito

    Guy_Incognito Well-Known Member

    Can I take that as a yes, you would include it? Is your problem with saying that they were gay that it isn't true? What if it is easily substantiated? Point is, when you have something that is unusual or surprising about a story, you include it to give a complete picture, even if it's not relevant to the point of your story.
     
  2. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    No. Because you don't want your reader to wallow through a bunch of irrelevant detail. And sexual orientation doesn't matter, in this case and in most cases, no matter how much you want it to.
     
  3. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

    I hate to tell you, but it tells a part of the story. Even if some homophobes are going to use the information as a part of their agenda.
     
  4. Guy_Incognito

    Guy_Incognito Well-Known Member

    I don't want anything, I've been arguing from the beginning that it's not relevant to the crime, but should be included anyway. Stop it.
     
  5. Guy_Incognito

    Guy_Incognito Well-Known Member

    And you already got, and conceded this point.
     
  6. 21

    21 Well-Known Member

    Guy, that analogy is utterly absurd, and you know it.

    There are countless considerations that go into responsible and ethical and accountable reporting. Batting order isn't one of them.
     
  7. Guy_Incognito

    Guy_Incognito Well-Known Member

    I don't. And you're not addressing it. But again, I'm not a journalist.
     
  8. sportschick

    sportschick Active Member

    That's pretty obvious. In fact most of the people advocating the addition of his orientation, which is as relevant as his skin color or what he eats for breakfast to this story, aren't journalists.
     
  9. Guy_Incognito

    Guy_Incognito Well-Known Member

    Don't hop in here 90% of the way through and take condescending shots that I gave you myself. If you have anything of substance to add, I'd love to hear it.
     
  10. dooley_womack1

    dooley_womack1 Well-Known Member

    I didn't concede shit. I said they were utterly unconnected to each other. And yes, I really do think you want to "smear the queer," with your prima facie assumption that its an "OMG, HE'S ONE OF 'THOSE'" case whenever someone who is homosexual does anything has come out over and over again.
     
  11. Guy_Incognito

    Guy_Incognito Well-Known Member

    Read your own post & then piss off. Anyone who actually wants to discuss the question, I'm happy to talk to. If you want to call me names and ignore what I write, I'm out.
     
  12. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Guy, I am hopping in here after 3 pages of nonsense. Nothing condescending meant. His sexuality has nothing to do with the story. And insisting it should be included is as transparent in purpose as someone who would try to insist that the race or religion of someone accused of a crime be included as an important detail, when they have nothing to do with the crime or the motivation for it.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page