Cheap shot foul on dunk temporarily paralyzes Indiana star

[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.

[constable]

I see no reason to omit the kids name. It's a sports story. Up here in Canada we publish the name of all players who get game misconduct penalities in hockey for much more egregious acts than this.

I would hazard a guess that many HS leagues and conferences publish their game sheets and reports online. Why not in the news paper?

[Dealone]

Originally Posted by constable

I see no reason to omit the kids name. It's a sports story. Up here in Canada we publish the name of all players who get game misconduct penalities in hockey for much more egregious acts than this.

I would hazard a guess that many HS leagues and conferences publish their game sheets and reports online. Why not in the news paper?

This story is not about some misconduct penalty; it is about a player suffering a serious medical sports injury. The author of the story assumed editorial opinion by associating the foul to the medical consequences with the phrase 'cheap shot' in the lead. Was it a cheap shot? Was it a hot dog dunk by Etherington? Would Etherington have lost his balance without being pushed from behind? Regarding the foul, how flagrant was it? The foul was committed before the dunk but yet it didn't interfere with Etherington enough to prevent the dunk. Etherington lost his balance after the dunk. Emotions run high with serious medical injuries especially when mixed with phrases like 'Cheap Shot'. #40 is a juvenile under the supervision of his family and his school. Do I associate his and his families name with this emotional story which associates (in my opinion unfairly) his foul with the medical injuries? These are the factors I consider as editor and as editor I make the correct call and omit the kid's name.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Dealone

This story is not about some misconduct penalty; it is about a player suffering a serious medical sports injury. The author of the story assumed editorial opinion but associating the foul to the medical consequences with the phrase 'cheap shot' in the lead. Was it a cheap shot? Was it a hot dog dunk by Etherington? Would Etherington have lost his balance without being pushed from behind? Regarding the foul, how flagrant was it? The foul was committed before the dunk but yet it didn't interfere with Etherington enough to prevent the dunk. Etherington lost his balance after the dunk. Emotions run high with serious medical injuries especially when mixed with phrases like 'Cheap Shot'. #40 is a juvenile under the supervision of his family and his school. Do I associate his and his families name with this emotional story which associates (in my opinion unfairly) his foul with the medical injuries? These are the factors I consider as editor and as editor I make the correct call and omit the kid's name.

An absolute cheap shot. It was not a hot dog dunk...not even close. I doubt the player would have lost his balance but that doesn't matter...the fact is he did due to an unnecessary push. That play was an easy flagrant foul...no doubt about it...I think it was a bush league 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.

[bainsey]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

You claimed it was bad journalism.

Like altering quotes?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by bainsey

Like altering quotes?

I do enjoy it, thanks. I think it's comical when done correctly and properly acknowledged with a "fixed it for you."

Oh, wait, that's not what you meant, is it? You meant the following:

Originally Posted by bainsey

You mean Like altering quotes?

Rather than this:

Originally Posted by bainsey

Do you Like altering quotes?

Fixed it for you again.