More from J. Todd Foster

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

More from J. Todd Foster.
Foster is the editor who took the WAPO to task for its story on the Bristol reporter who earned a Pulitzer.
Foster is back. This time he is defending the paper's decision to name a juvy who urinated in public during a high school ballgame during the national anthem. The kid was making good on a $20 bet. He was not charged with a crime.

While I am often skeptical of anyone who initializes their first name and uses their middle, I agree with Foster. He makes a lot of good points. And I like his style, the "J. Todd" aside.

http://www2.tricities.com/tri/news/opinion/columnists/article/j._todd_foster_column_it_was_a_tough_call_but_paper_stands_by_it/46249/

 

[spnited]

Obviously, the J stands for jacklass.

A juvenile pissing in public, no charges filed, and this assclown defends the decision to name him.
Jackass (and attention *****) Todd Foster.

 

[Ace]

If the kid was on the baseball team and did it in view of everyone, I can see naming him.

If he was just a spectator acting like a fool, I don't see why you would name him.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

What disturbs me more than him putting the kid's name in the paper is mentioning the school superintendent's and the teacher's concern that the kid is now suicidal because his name was in the paper.

Fine, the paper decided to embarrass the kid by mentioning the incident. But to then write a column that, in the process of defending themselves, mention that the kid may have suicidal tendencies, that's horrible judgment. And piling on.

Now everyone is going to be looking at the kid, not only as a stupid kid who peed in front of everyone, but as a kid who has depression issues that probably should be a little more private than get publicized in the paper.

 

[playthrough]

That's a pretty good point, Baron. I had no problem with the kid's name running. But yeah, gotta be careful to defend the choice without going overboard.

 

[NCGOLF14]

Kid shouldn't have done it. When the kid did it, he should have been arrested for indecent exposure and/or exposing oneself to a minor (I'm assuming one was in the stands of a high school baseball game). This would have made it illegal for the paper to put the kids name in the paper and there would be no story now. End of story.

While I agree with naming him the first time, the column definitely is piling on.

 

[Ace]

The column also seems to drip with a holier-than-thou attitude.

 

[spnited]

The column also seems to drip with a holier-than-thou attitude.

As did the previous Jackass Todd Foster column posted here.

 

[Drip]

The column also seems to drip with a holier-than-thou attitude.

As did the previous Jackass Todd Foster column posted here.

Please don't mention my name Jackass Todd Foster in the same post. That's just not right.
The guy is an idiot. He's been known to send blackberry emails to people to people who disagree with him and his logic.
Spnited gets kudos for aptly naming him.

 

[The Big Ragu]

Indeed. This thread, like everything, is all about you, drip.

Good point, Baron, about him quoting the school superintendent saying the kid is suicidal. If they hadn't done anything wrong by naming the kid and what he did, in his explanation he did do something wrong. If the kid really is suicidal, he needlessly aired it to the public -- on heresay, nonetheless. So much for his "public/private" bull**** explanation.

 

[Cameron Frye]

This would have made it illegal for the paper to put the kids name in the paper and there would be no story now.

Um...what?

 

[spnited]

Indeed. This thread, like everything, is all about you, drip.

Good point, Baron, about him quoting the school superintendent saying the kid is suicidal. If they hadn't done anything wrong by naming the kid and what he did, in his explanation he did do something wrong. If the kid really is suicidal, he needlessly aired it to the public -- on heresay, nonetheless. So much for his "public/private" bull**** explanation.

Geez, Ragu. Drip makes a feeble joke and you get all anal about it? Lighten up, dude.

 

[LongTimeListener]

This would have made it illegal for the paper to put the kids name in the paper and there would be no story now.

Um...what?

I think instead of "illegal," maybe he should have written "against newsaper policy." I had thought of that point myself -- I'm sure the paper has discussions and probably a clear protocol about what crimes they do and don't mention juveniles, and a $20 ordinance violation certainly wouldn't be enough to get your name in. However, Jackass T. Foster might have made an exception in this case just to prove a point, or to have material for his next self-aggrandizing column.

There was a long time in America when you could do something stupid, something really stupid even, and if you were 16 and didn't really hurt anybody, that stupid thing didn't follow you around as you matured. I'm glad I was 16 during that time.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

This would have made it illegal for the paper to put the kids name in the paper and there would be no story now.

Um...what?

I think what NCGolf means is that if a kid gets arrested and charged as a juvenile, the court case is sealed and the name isn't released to the public. Plenty of times, I've seen in my papers' police reports that the name is withheld.

That doesn't mean that if a reporter actually sees a kid committing a crime, he can't name the kid anyways in his report. There's that little thing called Freedom of the Press. In this case, the reporter saw the kid taking his leak, and wrote about it, with his name, and he could do so even if the kid was charged.

And to follow up with my first post, it also was a low blow by Foster to report the superintendent's phone message. Even though the super should have known better since, I would assume, he has dealt with the media before, that he should think that anything he says is on the record, still, Foster should have contacted him beforehand to make sure that it was. The super may not have intended for his phone message to be used for publication.

 

[Drip]

Indeed. This thread, like everything, is all about you, drip.

Good point, Baron, about him quoting the school superintendent saying the kid is suicidal. If they hadn't done anything wrong by naming the kid and what he did, in his explanation he did do something wrong. If the kid really is suicidal, he needlessly aired it to the public -- on heresay, nonetheless. So much for his "public/private" bull**** explanation.

Geez, Ragu. Drip makes a feeble joke and you get all anal about it? Lighten up, dude.

Spnited, I think Ragu is related to J. Todd Foster. That's the only way to explain his post and others like it.

 

[YGBFKM]

Drip and spnited joining forces. Perfect! An sj adventure replete with misspellings!

 

[Stitch]

Kid shouldn't have done it. When the kid did it, he should have been arrested for indecent exposure and/or exposing oneself to a minor (I'm assuming one was in the stands of a high school baseball game). This would have made it illegal for the paper to put the kids name in the paper and there would be no story now. End of story.

While I agree with naming him the first time, the column definitely is piling on.

The ignorance of media law is surprising. It's not illegal for a newspaper to name a juvenile charged with a crime. It's not illegal to name rape victims. There are very few things that a newspaper can publish that would be illegal.

 

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

This would have made it illegal for the paper to put the kids name in the paper and there would be no story now.

Um...what?

I think what NCGolf means is that if a kid gets arrested and charged as a juvenile, the court case is sealed and the name isn't released to the public. Plenty of times, I've seen in my papers' police reports that the name is withheld.

That doesn't mean that if a reporter actually sees a kid committing a crime, he can't name the kid anyways in his report. There's that little thing called Freedom of the Press. In this case, the reporter saw the kid taking his leak, and wrote about it, with his name, and he could do so even if the kid was charged.

And to follow up with my first post, it also was a low blow by Foster to report the superintendent's phone message. Even though the super should have known better since, I would assume, he has dealt with the media before, that he should think that anything he says is on the record, still, Foster should have contacted him beforehand to make sure that it was. The super may not have intended for his phone message to be used for publication.

Baron, you brought up a good point about the super. But I agree with J. Todd.
It's pretty obvious the super didn't want to talk, he wanted to vent - hence the message. I think he made the suicidal **** up. The kid can whip it out in public for a $20 bet, but when's named in the pasper he's suicidal? Yeah, I know kids don't always think about the consequences, but I doubt he was suicidal - ast least not becasuse of this incident.
And the super ought to be savvy enough to not leave a message like that and beleive it is off the record.

 

[Tarheel316]

The column also seems to drip with a holier-than-thou attitude.

Is this surprising? Consider the WAPO column and the fact that he hired Jim Cnockaert.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Baron, you brought up a good point about the super. But I agree with J. Todd.
It's pretty obvious the super didn't want to talk, he wanted to vent - hence the message. I think he made the suicidal **** up. The kid can whip it out in public for a $20 bet, but when's named in the pasper he's suicidal? Yeah, I know kids don't always think about the consequences, but I doubt he was suicidal - ast least not becasuse of this incident.
And the super ought to be savvy enough to not leave a message like that and beleive it is off the record.

You can barely find two practicing journalists who agree on precisely what "off the record" means. I don't think you can ask it of the superintendent of a small school district.