Updates to the Kane situation

[Ares]

I cannot judge Kane or his accuser at this point, but I will say I think the situation is unfair to Kane at the present time, under the law he is innocent until proven guilty.... charges have not even been filed.... but someone accused him of rape and it is out in the media and so now even if he were to be proven 100% innocent by evidence or if the accuser came out and admitted she was lying.... no matter how this proceeds, there will be a substantial number of people who will think of Kane as a rapist. It will be a social media joke..... it will hang over Kane's head forever even if he turns out to be innocent.

Until they had what they needed to press charges, at most this should have come out that Kane was being investigated for a crime.... saying he is accused of rape convicts him in probably 50% of the public minds because that is what our society has become.

If he turns out guilty then it won't matter, but if he turns out innocent, the baggage he will be stuck with is very unfair IMO.

 

[DMelt36]

As a reformed troll, I can identify them from a mile away.

frenchdip is clearly trolling for reactions and does not need to be fed any more.

LOL "reformed"

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[Ares]

LOL "reformed"

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

As Director of Trolls I can say that Mr. Grimson and I had some serious discussion at his last performance review about his conduct.

He has a ways to go but at least I don't have to fire him.

 

[HeHateMe]

As a reformed troll, I can identify them from a mile away.

frenchdip is clearly trolling for reactions and does not need to be fed any more.

As an Orthodox troll, I concur.

 

[DMelt36]

If you want to start another topic on the general discussion of rape, use another forum and/or thread. This one is for discussing updates to the Patrick Kane case.

Have you been in this forum for the last 2 weeks?

 

[Scoot26]

As Director of Trolls I can say that Mr. Grimson and I had some serious discussion at his last performance review about his conduct.

He has a ways to go but at least I don't have to fire him.

What did your overlord say though?

 

[italianbeef]

Who said they were or were not?

I've posted one article in this thread that had interviews with her coworkers while adding some sort of disclaimer that said no person in their right mind is going to say anything negative about a possible rape victim.

So here we are again, back to the "don't have enough information to form a credible opinion" spot. Don't you get sick of going in circles?

I wasn't calling you out on this, but the article you posted, for example (I think I linked the correct one) makes no such disclaimer of friends and co-workers statements, but the same paper has had no problem editorializing and pontificating about the assumed ulterior motives of Kane's friends who tell a different story.

To me, that is not fair reporting.

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-reg...nt-to-kanes-home-to-accompany-friend-20150812

 

[italianbeef]

I cannot judge Kane or his accuser at this point, but I will say I think the situation is unfair to Kane at the present time, under the law he is innocent until proven guilty.... charges have not even been filed.... but someone accused him of rape and it is out in the media and so now even if he were to be proven 100% innocent by evidence or if the accuser came out and admitted she was lying.... no matter how this proceeds, there will be a substantial number of people who will think of Kane as a rapist. It will be a social media joke..... it will hang over Kane's head forever even if he turns out to be innocent.

Until they had what they needed to press charges, at most this should have come out that Kane was being investigated for a crime.... saying he is accused of rape convicts him in probably 50% of the public minds because that is what our society has become.

If he turns out guilty then it won't matter, but if he turns out innocent, the baggage he will be stuck with is very unfair IMO.

Ed Zachary!

 

[DMelt36]

I wasn't calling you out on this, but the article you posted, for example (I think I linked the correct one) makes no such disclaimer of friends and co-workers statements, but the same paper has had no problem editorializing and pontificating about the assumed ulterior motives of Kane's friends who tell a different story.

To me, that is not fair reporting.

http://www.buffalonews.com/city-reg...nt-to-kanes-home-to-accompany-friend-20150812

There is absolutely zero editorializing in that story. Not sure what you're talking about.

Yeah, they published quotes from the accuser's friends/co-workers that back her up. They've also published quotes from the bar owner and Kane's chaffeur, who backed Kane. I don't see this unfair reporting that you're talking about.

[Edit] A newspaper does not have to run a disclaimer when they use people's quotes in a story. That'd be a bit redundant, actually. The whole point of quotation marks is to indicate that those are the actual words that people said, not what the newspaper is saying. People should be smart enough to know the difference, and if people can't understand it, they should probably not be procreating.

 

[italianbeef]

There is absolutely zero editorializing in that story. Not sure what you're talking about.

Yeah, they published quotes from the accuser's friends/co-workers that back her up. They've also published quotes from the bar owner and Kane's chaffeur, who backed Kane. I don't see this unfair reporting that you're talking about.

[Edit] A newspaper does not have to run a disclaimer when they use people's quotes in a story. That'd be a bit redundant, actually. The whole point of quotation marks is to indicate that those are the actual words that people said, not what the newspaper is saying. People should be smart enough to know the difference, and if people can't understand it, they should probably not be procreating.

Not that story, but I posted comments made by Graham in interviews yesterday. Sorry, I don't see him as unbiased at all.

Maybe I'm confusing what was reported in the BN about Croce and English to the visceral reaction to it from other media outlets, and on Twitter by Graham.

 

[DMelt36]

Not that story, but I posted comments made by Graham in interviews yesterday. Sorry, I don't see him as unbiased at all.

Maybe I'm confusing what was reported in the BN about Croce and English to the visceral reaction to it from other media outlets, and on Twitter by Graham.

Graham (and all reporters) are allowed to say whatever they want on Twitter and in interviews. Intelligent reporters (which Graham seems to be IMO, from following him for the last few weeks) aren't going to say things online or on the radio that would damage their credibility. If Graham is saying things about Kane's reputation, based on the fact that he's been a reporter in Buffalo for years and that position has likely resulted in him hearing dozens of stories that don't make it to print, there has to be some consideration that his conclusions have some merit.

 

[Ares]

What did your overlord say though?

He be like:

 

[clonetrooper264]

I cannot judge Kane or his accuser at this point, but I will say I think the situation is unfair to Kane at the present time, under the law he is innocent until proven guilty.... charges have not even been filed.... but someone accused him of rape and it is out in the media and so now even if he were to be proven 100% innocent by evidence or if the accuser came out and admitted she was lying.... no matter how this proceeds, there will be a substantial number of people who will think of Kane as a rapist. It will be a social media joke..... it will hang over Kane's head forever even if he turns out to be innocent.

Until they had what they needed to press charges, at most this should have come out that Kane was being investigated for a crime.... saying he is accused of rape convicts him in probably 50% of the public minds because that is what our society has become.

If he turns out guilty then it won't matter, but if he turns out innocent, the baggage he will be stuck with is very unfair IMO.

At best it turns out like the Kobe situation...it was bad for his PR for a number of years but he was able to reinvent his image. There's still a bunch that consider Kobe a rapist, but it's not the first thought with most people anymore. With luck, Kane can do the same, but his partying style makes it a little bit harder for him to clean up his image. I guess we'll see.

 

[BlackHawkPaul]

Not that story, but I posted comments made by Graham in interviews yesterday. Sorry, I don't see him as unbiased at all.

Maybe I'm confusing what was reported in the BN about Croce and English to the visceral reaction to it from other media outlets, and on Twitter by Graham.

I think this is when people start getting confused.
Graham as a person can have his opinions on the matter. That's the difference in what he writes and what his opinions/prejudices can be. That falls for anyone that is in the media. Tweets can be editorials, whether you like them or not. Journalists can and will tow this line. I think what you need to find to strengthen your argument is his personal bias with with his reporting. No one is going to be a robot in real life. The question I have for ItalianBeef and many here would be should a reporter only be allowed to report, even when the article has been written and have zero to say otherwise (social media posts, etc.)?
I was seeing the same complaint with 670 the Score on the B&B show, which I saw little to no bias, but an objective look at the situation.

 

[italianbeef]

I think this is when people start getting confused.
Graham as a person can have his opinions on the matter. That's the difference in what he writes and what his opinions/prejudices can be. That falls for anyone that is in the media. Tweets can be editorials, whether you like them or not. Journalists can and will tow this line. I think what you need to find to strengthen your argument is his personal bias with with his reporting. No one is going to be a robot in real life. The question I have for ItalianBeef and many here would be should a reporter only be allowed to report, even when the article has been written and have zero to say otherwise (social media posts, etc.)?
I was seeing the same complaint with 670 the Score on the B&B show, which I saw little to no bias, but an objective look at the situation.

What he said on Kap and Haugh's show, which I quoted earlier, I believe exposes a clear bias. Maybe he can separate that out from his reporting, maybe not. Maybe it causes some stories to be spiked, others to be rushed to the press.

He opened himself up to those questions by what he said, IMO.

EDIT: Quote from K&H show:

"A person who, let's face it, also has a bit of a track record. If you were to ask me when I woke up this morning to name three people in sports....Uh, I'm gonna tell you today that somebody's going to be investigated for rape, how long would it take for you to get to Patrick Kane? I mean, this is a guy who is out there in public doing things in a sloppy manner for the course of his career. He's been in court before, he's had allegations levied at him before...uh, take a look at Deadspin, you know, all the different things...he lives his life in a very loose and carefree manner."

 

[DMelt36]

What he said on Kap and Haugh's show, which I quoted earlier, I believe exposes a clear bias. Maybe he can separate that out from his reporting, maybe not. Maybe it causes some stories to be spiked, others to be rushed to the press.

He opened himself up to those questions by what he said, IMO.

EDIT: Quote from K&H show:

"A person who, let's face it, also has a bit of a track record. If you were to ask me when I woke up this morning to name three people in sports....Uh, I'm gonna tell you today that somebody's going to be investigated for rape, how long would it take for you to get to Patrick Kane? I mean, this is a guy who is out there in public doing things in a sloppy manner for the course of his career. He's been in court before, he's had allegations levied at him before...uh, take a look at Deadspin, you know, all the different things...he lives his life in a very loose and carefree manner."

An opinion =/= bias

 

[BlackHawkPaul]

What he said on Kap and Haugh's show, which I quoted earlier, I believe exposes a clear bias. Maybe he can separate that out from his reporting, maybe not. Maybe it causes some stories to be spiked, others to be rushed to the press.

He opened himself up to those questions by what he said, IMO.

EDIT: Quote from K&H show:

"A person who, let's face it, also has a bit of a track record. If you were to ask me when I woke up this morning to name three people in sports....Uh, I'm gonna tell you today that somebody's going to be investigated for rape, how long would it take for you to get to Patrick Kane? I mean, this is a guy who is out there in public doing things in a sloppy manner for the course of his career. He's been in court before, he's had allegations levied at him before...uh, take a look at Deadspin, you know, all the different things...he lives his life in a very loose and carefree manner."

So your feeling is that he overstepped journalistic ethics with his own opinion on the subject asked of him by two guys that participate on many roundtable shows?

An opinion =/= bias

Not sure if I'm on board 100% there.
I think bias can play into opinions as well as prejudices.

I spent some time studying journalism back in the day, and it helped me when I was a grad student working on my thesis documentary. Every decision you make, whether it's editing a film or writing an article can weigh heavily on bias or your omission of it. Its a very difficult line to tow.

 

[DMelt36]

Not sure if I'm on board 100% there.
I think bias can play into opinions as well as prejudices.

I guess I should clarify that to say that having an opinion on something does not necessarily mean you have a bias. It certainly can result in that, but it is far from a lock.

 

[Samurai]

I guess I should clarify that to say that having an opinion on something does not necessarily mean you have a bias. It certainly can result in that, but it is far from a lock.

I think it's clear that he has a bias against Kane. Think of it this way...if he made similar comments about the "victim" i.e... "If I had to name three slutty women who were most likely to make a bogus rape accusation, she would be at the top of my list"...do you not think there would be a bit of a public outcry for his balls on a platter?

That is basically what he's doing to Kane.

 

[DMelt36]

I think it's clear that he has a bias against Kane. Think of it this way...if he made similar comments about the "victim" i.e... "If I had to name three slutty women who were most likely to make a bogus rape accusation, she would be at the top of my list"...do you not think there would be a bit of a public outcry for his balls on a platter?

That is basically what he's doing to Kane.

It's only a bias if it affects his reporting, in my mind. Until someone can prove that, I think those are just his opinions. You can think someone is a shitty person and still cover them fairly. That's why he has editors above him to make sure he's not working purely out of confirmation bias.