|
It very well could be that Goldie was hit head-on, and that could be cleared up after the ongoing lawsuit is settled. But I can't go ahead and write that she was hit head-on when Goldie – the person involved in the crash – says she was T-boned. How can I source anything otherwise?
What I CAN do is change in the online story is that she SAYS she was t-boned. That is factual. She did say that.
Story has been changed online.
http://www.torontosun.com/news/toron.../15319456.html
What is done is done, about you redeem yourself (if you care to) and maybe actually produce a good article.
Let me give you an idea:
This is one of the posts in relation to the accident where a girl fell off a bike while the rider was running from the cops
Morally Ambiguous (submissions welcome)
"Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth." - Oscar Wilde
I think people should first think about where the term "T-Bone" came from. Years ago it was used to described a collision of two vehicles, when one hits the broad side of the other. Makes sense because they are both not as wide as they are long. But when you factor a bike into the scene, technically a T-Bone exists no matter how a bike hits a car or truck. A bike can hit the front of that truck and it is still a broad side compared to the narrow width of a bike. And because of that (assuming she did use the term T-Bone) it could be an honest mistake of term-use given the circumstances.
It wouldn't be the first time that people get mixed up on (or actually even mis-use the term they mean) and use the wrong term. She might have said T-Bone while thinking head-on....or like I say, used the wrong term right from the get-go.
When media does retractions or corrections or (exclusions affecting context; the balance of Bandit Bill's post) are not unlike a court room when, what you want people (jurors/or in this case the general public) to hear, you get them to hear even though defense might cry foul and raise an objection. The judge sustains the objection, instructs the jurors to disregard what they just heard...but the damage has already been done/accomplished. You can't unring a bell.
This is why media reporting need to actively resist every single time they do a story, sensationalism at the expense of morality.
If you take the almighty dollar out of the situation, the choice is usually not grey or difficult to define at all.
Last edited by thumpit; 09-15-2010 at 12:53 PM.
so we have a crappy journalist from a rag thats one step away from being sold at checkouts omitting facts and playing into stereotypes to kiss the *** of her boss.
SHOCKING.
In this particular bit o' drama arc, we actually have the journalist accurately quoting what was said.
Something many have failed to return the favour with - ie: "ninjaboys".
"When you invite the whole world to your party, inevitably someone pees in the beer."
Visit Sponsors of GTAM!
Was there really any question to the fact it was quoted? Quoting a stupid term still only helps promote it's use. Quoting the n-bomb in an article about Carribana probably wouldn't make a lot of people happy either... sure it's not your words, but that doesn't make you less of an idiot for repeating it.
Mmm, Toronto Motorcycles
Was the RTI quote accurate?
If that's the case I won't send my kids there for training. Their version of reasonable does not match my own.
As far as "ninjaboys", I just assumed that the paper sold more Kawasaki advertising than Suzuki.
Since it's not a direct quote, assume it's ********.
2006 ZX-6R PART OUTOriginally Posted by Amazon
Good article...Goldie rocks
Proud owner of a 2001 Kawi 250 (low side count: 3)
UWaterloo '13-14 - Fin. Analysis, Com. Sci. (SE) Double
(don't hate on the sig...ye have been warned...)
Bookmarks