I wrote earlier this week about The Post-Star's publication of the name of a Fort Edward football player accused of public urination and fleeing police who tried to question him about it. This despite the fact that the paper has a policy of not publishing names of people under 18 charged with misdemeanors or less.
When I posted this query on the paper's website about this apparent hypocrisy, an editor responded as follows:
There are a couple of reasons why we chose to run his name. First, our policy is that we 'generally' don't run the names, but we make exceptions in special cases where the arrest is of an unusual nature or interest. In this case, the player was indeed charged with a crime -- a misdemeanor count of resisting arrest. It carries a jail term of up to a year. This was not a routine arrest; it involved a police chase in which an officer was injured. In addition, a superstar football player in a sports town like Fort Edward at sectional time can be considered a public figure, and therefore his arrest is of interest to the general public. And finally, we have a separate policy in which we do publish the names of minors who have been arrested for drinking-related crimes. The justification is that the threat of publishing names might discourage some minors from drinking and discourage some parents from hosting parties in which alcohol is served to minors.
The main point is legitimate, although I'm not sure I'm convinced. The last point, however, is ridiculous.
According to this policy, the paper will not publish the names of minors accused of sex crimes or assault, provided it's not a felony.
A kid was recently arrested by the FBI and state police for posting a message on the Internet that indicated someone intended to infiltrate the Queensbury High School with firearms.
Police did not release the name of the kid but an editor stated that even if the authorities had released the name, the paper wouldn't have published it.
The editor stated that 'a case involving a 13-year-old is a completely different matter than one involving a 17-year-old.'
Yet, there's also a difference between a kid who implicitly threatens a Columbine-style massacre and a kid taking a leak on a public street.
Apparently the paper sees a more compelling public interest in discouraging a 17 year old from having a beer than a 13 year old from threatening gun violence in a school.
Disgraceful.
That said, the reaction to the paper's coverage of the Fort Edward case was equally shameful. As anyone could have predicted, there were legions of apologists out in force for the drunk football player.
Awww, he's just a kid and kids do stupid things.
He was just celebrating a "MAJOR milestone" of winning a big game.
Everyone has "been deluded by the politically correct police...."
There was even a thread which blamed the volleyball team.
Umm... yea.
Forget for a moment whether you think it's a big deal for the kid to be drinking.
The fact of the matter is that athletes in Fort Edward (and most other schools around here) agree to a code of conduct promising, among other things, not to drink.
There are no exceptions for "MAJOR milestones."
There is no loophole allowing a football player to blame the volleyball team.
I don't want the kid crucified but I think the punishment by the school is appropriate.
But the message that some people are really sending to ALL the kids in Fort Edward is that it's ok for your word to mean nothing. It's ok for your promise to be worthless, so long as there's a "MAJOR milestone" involved. It's ok to sign something without reading it or with no intention of following it. You must follow certain standards of behavior, except if you're winning.
No wonder there are so many problems in Fort Edward if this is the message the so-called responsible adults are sending.
Showing posts with label Ft Edward. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ft Edward. Show all posts
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Thursday, November 08, 2007
Post-Star outs minor in violation of its own policy
Recently, there was another alcohol controversy regarding a star athlete in Fort Edward.
A player for their football team was arrested for allegedly urinating on a public street and running from cops who tried to question him.
The player was suspended for two games by the school, the state quarterfinal and (potentially) the state semifinal, for violation of the school's athletic code of conduct.
Earlier this year, their star basketball player was spotted in pictures on the Internet attending a party where kids were drinking alcohol, another violation of the code of conduct. This long, drawn out fiasco was played out during the basketball team's run to the state final. No one was suspended.
So at least school officials learned from their PR black eye and did the right thing this time.
Not surprisingly, some people in Fort Edward are again blaming the newspaper, claiming they have a vendetta against the town and the school, blah blah blah. Hey Fort Edward, if your star athletes are lushes, it's not the daily's fault, it's the parents' fault! And don't complain to the paper if every corner of your downtown smells like piss.
However, there was one legitimate question raised about the paper's coverage this time around (just like last time).
One commenter to the online article asked, "I thought it was the policy of the POST-STAR not to list the names of underage people who have been arrested?"
And he's right. Many articles on alleged underage criminal behavior (such as this one) contain the disclaimer, "The Post-Star generally does not publish the names of those under 18 charged with misdemeanors or less."
The football player was charged with two non-criminal violations and a misdemeanor.
So why was his name plastered all over the paper?
The disclaimer does include the key word 'generally,' which is a pretty broad and vague loophole.
But no where did the paper explain why an exception was made in this case.
Yes, conspiracy theorists are running wild claiming The Post-Star hates Fort Edward, the school, etc. They have a vendetta. They want to tar and feather this poor kid to make an example out of him.
I suspect the paper's counterproductive editorial crusade against teen drinking is affecting its coverage of news stories. Most journalists will swear up and down that editorial positions do not affect news coverage. I can accept that the editorial positions of a newspaper may not affect HOW news stories are covered but I firmly believe that editorial positions often affect WHAT news stories are covered, HOW OFTEN and HOW MUCH PROMINENCE is given to each (front page vs the bottom corner of page B13).
The Post-Star provided no explanation why it ignored its own policy and chose to publicly flog this minor for actions which were stupid, disgusting and, yes, criminal but hardly a threat to public safety (he was on foot). As long as the daily refuses to provide an explanation for its apparent hypocrisy, the conspiracy theorists will thrive.
A player for their football team was arrested for allegedly urinating on a public street and running from cops who tried to question him.
The player was suspended for two games by the school, the state quarterfinal and (potentially) the state semifinal, for violation of the school's athletic code of conduct.
Earlier this year, their star basketball player was spotted in pictures on the Internet attending a party where kids were drinking alcohol, another violation of the code of conduct. This long, drawn out fiasco was played out during the basketball team's run to the state final. No one was suspended.
So at least school officials learned from their PR black eye and did the right thing this time.
Not surprisingly, some people in Fort Edward are again blaming the newspaper, claiming they have a vendetta against the town and the school, blah blah blah. Hey Fort Edward, if your star athletes are lushes, it's not the daily's fault, it's the parents' fault! And don't complain to the paper if every corner of your downtown smells like piss.
However, there was one legitimate question raised about the paper's coverage this time around (just like last time).
One commenter to the online article asked, "I thought it was the policy of the POST-STAR not to list the names of underage people who have been arrested?"
And he's right. Many articles on alleged underage criminal behavior (such as this one) contain the disclaimer, "The Post-Star generally does not publish the names of those under 18 charged with misdemeanors or less."
The football player was charged with two non-criminal violations and a misdemeanor.
So why was his name plastered all over the paper?
The disclaimer does include the key word 'generally,' which is a pretty broad and vague loophole.
But no where did the paper explain why an exception was made in this case.
Yes, conspiracy theorists are running wild claiming The Post-Star hates Fort Edward, the school, etc. They have a vendetta. They want to tar and feather this poor kid to make an example out of him.
I suspect the paper's counterproductive editorial crusade against teen drinking is affecting its coverage of news stories. Most journalists will swear up and down that editorial positions do not affect news coverage. I can accept that the editorial positions of a newspaper may not affect HOW news stories are covered but I firmly believe that editorial positions often affect WHAT news stories are covered, HOW OFTEN and HOW MUCH PROMINENCE is given to each (front page vs the bottom corner of page B13).
The Post-Star provided no explanation why it ignored its own policy and chose to publicly flog this minor for actions which were stupid, disgusting and, yes, criminal but hardly a threat to public safety (he was on foot). As long as the daily refuses to provide an explanation for its apparent hypocrisy, the conspiracy theorists will thrive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)