Cheap shot foul on dunk temporarily paralyzes Indiana star

[Adam]

Originally Posted by grunewar

He may have "purposely" pushed an opponent or "intentionally" fouled an opponent, but I don't think he "purposely" injured an opponent.

Of course, I could be wrong too.

Like I said, I was making an assumption. I still say there was no real need to publish the kid's name. And Bainsey's 2nd post on this topic was just overkill.

Originally Posted by bainsey

Right, but that really wasn't my point.

I believe the author either a) simply forget to mention that little detail, or b) intentionally kept his name out, "because he's a kid." At the risk of turning this thread into something else, we either have bad journalism, or an ethical question where I don't agree with the author's (or editor's) choice.

[26 Year Gap]

I could see any out-of-pocket medical expenses being the object of a civil suit. I do not see criminal charges being brought.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

I still say there was no real need to publish the kid's name.

It's simple, really. A reporter's job is to report. To leave out a key fact is not doing his/her job.

As for the criminality of it all, I think Rich is dead on. If we start filing criminal charges on every excessive contact in a sporting event, I can't begin to imagine how that would change high school sports as we know it.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

It's simple, really. A reporter's job is to report. To leave out a key fact is not doing his/her job.

And how is the name of the fouling player a "key fact?" Really? Maybe we could put him in the stocks when we're done? Some rotten tomatoes may be in order.

I'm done.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

And how is the name of the fouling player a "key fact?" Really?

Yes, really! It's the reporter's job!

The next time you report to the table that Team A gets two free throws, and they ask you which Team B player committed the foul, tell the table it's not a key fact.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Yes, really! It's the reporter's job!

The next time you report to the table that Team A gets two free throws, and they ask you which Team B player committed the foul, tell the table it's not a key fact.

Bad analogy. The player's name is a key fact to the police - people that enforce the laws and record convictions. The media is permitted to publish information, so they do. But they don't have to.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Bad analogy. The player's name is a key fact to the police - people that enforce the laws and record convictions. The media is permitted to publish information, so they do. But they don't have to.

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

The fouling player is not only a key fact, it is a pertinent one when it comes to scorekeeping. For a newspaper article, it's neither. A newspaper article is not an official account of the game.

You folks have missed my point.

When you go to the table to report a technical foul, do you concern yourself with the embarrassment it may cause that player? Of course not. You do your job, and report the facts.

In journalism, it's the same thing. You don't concern yourself with the embarrassment of the principles (with some exceptions of certain crime victims); you merely do your job and report. The only reason one would intentionally omit such information is that uneasy feeling that you may humiliate someone, and that feeling has no place here, no more than it does when we report a foul to the table.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

In journalism, it's the same thing. You don't concern yourself with the embarrassment of the principles (with some exceptions of certain crime victims); you merely do your job and report. The only reason one would intentionally omit such information is that uneasy feeling that you may humiliate someone, and that feeling has no place here, no more than it does when we report a foul to the table.

You're making an assumption: that the reporter had any valid reason to report the name of the fouling player. Or that he has a history of reporting the names of the players who commit fouls.

You need to back that assumption up before you start having a fit about the omission in this particular article.

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by bainsey

You folks have missed my point.

When you go to the table to report a technical foul, do you concern yourself with the embarrassment it may cause that player? Of course not. You do your job, and report the facts.

In journalism, it's the same thing. You don't concern yourself with the embarrassment of the principles (with some exceptions of certain crime victims); you merely do your job and report. The only reason one would intentionally omit such information is that uneasy feeling that you may humiliate someone, and that feeling has no place here, no more than it does when we report a foul to the table.

Maybe you meant "principals" which means something completely different, although it is not nearly as humorous in this context.

[RadioBlue]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Yes, really! It's the reporter's job!

The next time you report to the table that Team A gets two free throws, and they ask you which Team B player committed the foul, tell the table it's not a key fact.

The fouling player is not only a key fact, it is a pertinent one when it comes to scorekeeping. For a newspaper article, it's neither. A newspaper article is not an official account of the game.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Yes, really! It's the reporter's job!

The next time you report to the table that Team A gets two free throws, and they ask you which Team B player committed the foul, tell the table it's not a key fact.

Good grief. Apples and potatoes, dude. I know I said I was done, but this is just too stupid to ignore.

How many times does the fouling player get named in the newspaper article?

Your stupid analogy doesn't take into account the fact that it's no more pertinent than B1's foul in the first quarter, or B2's foul in the 2nd quarter, or A2's foul in the fourth. Are you going to bust the reporter's chops for not naming them as well? How about if he notes all the free throws that were taken by team A? Shouldn't he also say who the fouls were called on?

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Your stupid analogy doesn't take into account the fact that it's no more pertinent than B1's foul in the first quarter, or B2's foul in the 2nd quarter, or A2's foul in the fourth.

Good lord, Snaqs, you're smarter than that.

[rockyroad]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Good lord, Snaqs, you're smarter than that.

No one besides you is questioning Snaqs' intelligence...pretty much all of the rest of us are questioning yours on this issue.

You keep saying the kid's name is a key fact and is pertinent, but you have failed to explain why it is a key fact. And the analogy you used does not work at all...

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Apples and potatoes?

Pomme de terre ???

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Pomme de terre ???

Mais oui!