Post Gazette beat guy in hot water

Holy shit...yeah, I definitely would have remembered that.

 

I think the point of that argument was that a columnist, who's more used to taking a position and backing it up, would not make the same statement, verbatim, but could make a similar argument but not in a way that offended half of the population.

 

Of the near-infinite number of ways you could choose to say "Michael Vick isn't getting a fair shake, this is a rush to judgment and an overreaction on the part of fans and the press and the NFL," this was one of a handful that would generate this kind of backlash.

I'm interested, though, in why some of us here seem to think this is a "PC" problem, as opposed to a poorly articulated, boneheaded-parallel problem.

 

Technically not confirming it...his name was Paul and he was from that paper and he did challenge the rest of SJ to a fight if anyone dared to...okay, yeah, I guess we're confirming it. If anyone knows different, we will print a retraction.

And as for columnists getting a pass when they make offensive statements, ask Bob Ryan.

 

A female friend of mine who does criminal defense work said to me a couple of weeks ago, "He'd have been better off robbing a bank."

There. Point made.

Why did he have to bring rape into it? The country is still reeling from a gruesome crime involving rape on the level of "In Cold Blood"-- which happened just a week ago. That's still fresh in a lot of folks' minds.

I guess I'd give him the benefit of the doubt, but now you say he posted a bunch of bad stuff here? Eh.

 

Paul will probably be ok at the P-G for the simple fact the statement was made on a TV station, not through the paper.
The show must have been live Sunday, sometimes it's not.
I'd have to believe KD would have cut it out had it been taped.

 

That's more of an argument for being tougher on rapists, not for being easier on Vick, who deserves all that scorn and more if what is charged is true.

 

And note to Paul:
I don't think people aren't tough on rapists.

 

That's why.

 

That's patently ridiculous, shot.

Why, oh why, would he bring rape into it? To make a point about the criminal justice system? To make a specific point about how the criminal justice system prosecutes rape? What does any of that have to do with Vick?

That makes no sense.

 

i think the phrase "better off" coupled with "raping a woman" is what caused this shitstorm. If Zeise has said, "lemme show you how silly the NFL's discipline policy is: if Michael Vick is accused of raping a woman and not dog fighting he might only serve a four-game suspension," I don't envision a big flap over this. And again, that comes back to wording. He's essentially making the same statement, just re-wording it to make it sound less-harsh.