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!

The Stanford swimmer, the rape, and the letter the victim read in court

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Double Down, Jun 3, 2016.

  1. bigpern23

    bigpern23 Well-Known Member

    Also wrong.
     
  2. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    You don't think it's dishonest at all to say he "only" served three months of a six-month sentence, without providing the context that this is typical?
     
  3. UPChip

    UPChip Well-Known Member

    Of that I am aware.

    He comes from a small community and, because he accomplished much athletically within that small community and partially because he comes from a religious subgroup of that small community that has a reputation for being highly insular and morally strict, many believe he was somehow railroaded, which I am highly skeptical of given the reported facts of the case.
     
  4. MisterCreosote

    MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

    Then the word "only" isn't what's misleading; it's the original "6-month sentence" that is.
     
  5. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    I think it is, too. No doubt. But a journalist's job is to figure that out and explain it clearly to readers. Some did, and noted it in the original stories. Some didn't, and now appear to think they are onto something. I've seen stories that indicate that he "only" served three months of his sentence, with no further explanation. Wouldn't your intellectual curiosity as a journalist lead you to seek out why he's being released after three months of what you thought was a six-month sentence?

    You know what? It sucks that the laws are written in such a confusing way. But they are, and journalists should clarify things, not just give in to the confusion.
     
    justgladtobehere and YankeeFan like this.
  6. Fly

    Fly Well-Known Member

    No, just...no (I know you added the disclaimer at the end so it's not a beef with you my man). From Day One when it happened (and was talked about in my circles) this was a complete no-doubter. There were some seriously shameful things behind the scenes, it was just a terrible situation.

    I am very familiar with the area you formerly covered (wife has family there, one is the same age as the perp). Anyone who thinks he was "railroaded" is delusional.
     
  7. MisterCreosote

    MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

    They have:

    Actually, Brock Turner will probably spend just three months in jail for Stanford sexual assault

    Inmates typically serve half their jail sentences unless there are disciplinary problems, Jensen said. If inmates fight or fail to obey officers’ orders or cause other problems, they can be given additional days in jail up to the length of their original sentence.

    So, in other words, it's not a 6-month sentence. It's a 3-month sentence with penalties for misbehaving. I haven't heard an explanation for it that sounds like anything but fancy semantic tricks.
     
  8. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member



    Oh, yeah. Some have. Good for them.

    Right. The comparison I used was an NFL non-guaranteed contract. That's what this sentence is - a three-month sentence with a State option to pick up the other three months.
     
  9. bigpern23

    bigpern23 Well-Known Member

    I'm bored and can't resist:
    "Colin Kaepernick was cut Wednesday, as the 49ers handed the starting quarterback job to Blaine Gabbert. Kaepernick played only three years and collected only $42 million of his six-year, $114 million contract."

    Dishonest? Misleading? An affront to journalism? Or did the writer simply trust that his audience understood that NFL players rarely play out their entire contract?

    OK, seriously, I'm out of this debate, but I had to laugh at the comparison. :D
     
  10. Songbird

    Songbird Well-Known Member

    Only if they would.
     
  11. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    It depends on the audience. But in most cases, yes, you note within that sentence or immediately following it that the contract was not guaranteed. People don't understand sentencing, and it contributes to the idea, which the Republican candidate for president is only too happy to seize on, that we have a bunch of marauding criminal predators running free and getting deals granted to them by the state for no reason. The Turner three-month stories and headlines were clickbait, but, unfortunately for the cause of accuracy in reporting, he committed the one crime that journalists and the public alike believe the end always justifies the means regarding. It's why we have trained journalists on here defending Rolling Stone's reporting and not believing Patrick Kane has any expectation to get his side of the story told.

    The exception, of course, is Juanita Broaddrick. That slut whore is clearly lying.

    I'm glad you think that poor journalism is funny.
     
  12. MisterCreosote

    MisterCreosote Well-Known Member

    Neither of these things happened the way you remember them.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page