Cheap shot foul on dunk temporarily paralyzes Indiana star

[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.

[RadioBlue]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

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.

Snaq's is correct. Don't call it shoddy journalism unless you have all the pertinent & relevant facts. You've stated an opinion based on your limited knowledge of the whole story. You're calling the integrity of a newspaper writer into question without knowing all the facts. Perhaps the writer had the kids name in his original story, but the editor yanked it. Do you know?

Would I have had a problem if the story included the fouler's name? Not at all. Just as I don't have a problem with the name being excluded. It really doesn't matter whether the kid's name is in the story, or not.

How often does a newspaper article name a kid who got called for defensive pass interference that led to the game-winning touchdown? How many times have you seen a rightfielder get named when he drops a can-of-corn flyball which led to the winning run in a high school regional?

It's in poor taste to name kids who make mistakes during a contest. While this situation is not your run-of-the-mill foul, nor were the results, I'm not sure it rises to the level where the offender should be named with no if's, and's or but's.

[Adam]

Yeah, the argument seems to be there are three types of fouls for purposes of naming the player:
1. typical foul, not worth mentioning.
2. Intentional/flagrant foul that causes injury but isn't a crime. Name the b@stard and embarrass him.
3. Criminal conduct. Leave it out if he's a juvenile.

I would change your football example to a personal foul (maybe roughing the kicker on a punt). Do they ever name these players in reports on high school games?

[26 Year Gap]

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

Snaq's is correct. Don't call it shoddy journalism unless you have all the pertinent & relevant facts. You've stated an opinion based on your limited knowledge of the whole story. You're calling the integrity of a newspaper writer into question without knowing all the facts. Perhaps the writer had the kids name in his original story, but the editor yanked it. Do you know?

Would I have had a problem if the story included the fouler's name? Not at all. Just as I don't have a problem with the name being excluded. It really doesn't matter whether the kid's name is in the story, or not.

How often does a newspaper article name a kid who got called for defensive pass interference that led to the game-winning touchdown? How many times have you seen a rightfielder get named when he drops a can-of-corn flyball which led to the winning run in a high school regional?

It's in poor taste to name kids who make mistakes during a contest. While this situation is not your run-of-the-mill foul, nor were the results, I'm not sure it rises to the level where the offender should be named with no if's, and's or but's.

Actually, this is a pretty pertinent factoid. Back when I was a junior in HS, we had to raise our hand if we committed the foul. When I was a senior, it became optional. Why? Because the Fed did not want to have the fouler "embarrassed because he did something wrong". I thought it was stupid then, and still do today. But, it leads to what I and others have pointed out multiple times in this thread. Editorial policy is up to the publishers and editors--not reporters or readers. And if they want to run their business that way, it is fine by me. I have a much greater problem with editorializing masquerading as reporting than I do because some kid's name was left out of a story and some guy on an internet forum is upset about it.

[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.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by 26 Year Gap

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

Good catch, Gap.

Though, I don't know what Dear Abby has to do with this. The most productive thing I could do -- if any -- is simply email the newspaper. Instead, I chose to casually mention it here. That casual nature was lost pretty quickly.

[Dealone]

Regarding the omission of #40's name, I can see reasons on both sides. The player's name matters as important context in the story ie. does #40 have a history of intentional/flagrant fouls ? I am also fine with omitting a juvenile's name as editorial policy. Beyond policy, I would probably have omitted 40's name in this particular case because I think the severe consequences of this intentional foul were accidental and do not merit further punishment or anger focused on a juvenile or his family. Obviously it was a nasty foul but the medical injuries resulted from airborn physics. Outside of the name issue, #40 shoves Etherington on the way up in the dunk (that makes a difference regarding intent). Etherington has a breakaway choice, a two handed full speed slam or an easy layup. Maybe #40, playing in front of a packed home crowd, didn't like the slam option and reacted badly in a regrettable instant. I hope Etherington makes a full recovery and everybody heals from this unfortunate play.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Good catch, Gap.

Though, I don't know what Dear Abby has to do with this. The most productive thing I could do -- if any -- is simply email the newspaper. Instead, I chose to casually mention it here. That casual nature was lost pretty quickly.

Fixed it for you.

"casually" my azz. You claimed it was bad journalism.

[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.