PDA

View Full Version : Chicago media blackout on name of Flubbie fan?


PaleHoseGeorge
10-15-2003, 10:11 AM
We're now 12 hours past last night's delicious outcome of the Flubbie game. At a similar juncture, EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD knew the name of that kid who reached out and caught that home run ball in Yankee Stadium.

Yet somehow NOBODY in the hard-working Chicago news media has come out with the name of this imbecile. The NY media-- or any big city media-- would have outed this guy six hours ago, or however long it took to get him safely home.

The Chicago media is a frickin' joke. They are the laziest, most patronizing, most parochial, and ultimately uncompetitive group of retards to ever wear press credentials.

Chicago is not a big city. When it comes to sports journalism, we might as well be Hooterville.

anewman35
10-15-2003, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
We're now 12 hours past last night's delicious outcome of the Flubbie game. At a similar juncture, EVERYBODY IN THE WORLD knew the name of that kid who reached out and caught that home run ball in Yankee Stadium.

Yet somehow NOBODY in the hard-working Chicago news media has come out with the name of this imbecile. The NY media-- or any big city media-- would have outed this guy six hours ago, or however long it took to get him safely home.

The Chicago media is a frickin' joke. They are the laziest, most patronizing, most parochial, and ultimately uncompetitive group of retards to ever wear press credentials.

Chicago is not a big city. When it comes to sports journalism, we might as well be Hooterville.

Come on now. Is there any reason in the world for people to know the guy's name? His life is already ruined, just because of what his friends are going to do. Why open him up to millions of upset Cubs fans for what was a pretty honest mistake? Don't you think that the media knows (or could easilly know) the guy's info, but chooses not to reveal it?

Adam

Dadawg_77
10-15-2003, 10:16 AM
PHG, this is different then Yankee fan first the fan didn't screw anything up as the HR counted. Secondly, I am not sure but if something happen to this guy because of something which the media reported I do not know if they could be liable or even if they could sleep at night. The Media won't publish it to protect themselves and the guy.

Viva Magglio
10-15-2003, 10:16 AM
Dan Bernstein want to interview this individual on the air but pledged not to reveal his name.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-15-2003, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by anewman35
Come on now. Is there any reason in the world for people to know the guy's name? His life is already ruined, just because of what his friends are going to do. Why open him up to millions of upset Cubs fans for what was a pretty honest mistake? Don't you think that the media knows (or could easilly know) the guy's info, but chooses not to reveal it?

EXACTLY. That's why the charge of patronizing and parochial sticks. That's why the charge of being uncompetitive and lazy sticks, too.

Thanks for proving my point.

This would never happen in NYC, but it *IS* happening in Chicago. We're closer to Hooterville than you think.

MarqSox
10-15-2003, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by anewman35
Come on now. Is there any reason in the world for people to know the guy's name? His life is already ruined, just because of what his friends are going to do. Why open him up to millions of upset Cubs fans for what was a pretty honest mistake? Don't you think that the media knows (or could easilly know) the guy's info, but chooses not to reveal it?

Adam
Agree 100%. The media knows the name, I'm sure, but it would be wholly unethical to release it publicly. The kid did nothing wrong (what he did was dumb, yes, but it wasn't illegal), he was just the victim of unfortunate circumstances.

Comparing him to Jeffrey Maier is wrong also. He HELPED the Yankees and became a celebrity for it. This kid RUINED the Cubs, and outing him in the media would be akin to signing his death certificate. Not cool.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-15-2003, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by MarqSox
Agree 100%. The media knows the name, I'm sure, but it would be wholly unethical to release it publicly. The kid did nothing wrong (what he did was dumb, yes, but it wasn't illegal), he was just the victim of unfortunate circumstances.

Comparing him to Jeffrey Maier is wrong also. He HELPED the Yankees and became a celebrity for it. This kid RUINED the Cubs, and outing him in the media would be akin to signing his death certificate. Not cool.

H-O-O-T-E-R-V-I-L-L-E.

He is home.

He is safe.

His name will come out eventually anyway.

anewman35
10-15-2003, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
EXACTLY. That's why the charge of patronizing and parochial sticks. That's why the charge of being uncompetitive and lazy sticks, too.

Thanks for proving my point.

This would never happen in NYC, but it *IS* happening in Chicago. We're closer to Hooterville than you think.

In this case, is it a bad thing? I have no love for a Cubs fan, but do you want to see a guy's life ruined? Why?

PaleHoseGeorge
10-15-2003, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by anewman35
In this case, is it a bad thing? I have no love for a Cubs fan, but do you want to see a guy's life ruined? Why?

No. I want the media to do their job-- at least pretend to do their job.

He is home.

He is safe.

His name will come out anyway.

kittle42
10-15-2003, 10:21 AM
This whole thing is just going to make it worse when the Cubs do win tonight. Now there's this whole sense of impending doom over Cubdumb and they'll all be like "we did the impossible" even more than they would have been the last two games.

PLEASE WIN MARLINS

anewman35
10-15-2003, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
No. I want the media to do their job-- at least pretend to do their job.

He is home.

He is safe.

His name will come out anyway.

If his name comes out, he's not safe. Let's say his name was out and the Cubs lose tonight. Don't you think people would look him up, find out where he lives, and destroy whatever or whoever they find there? I think you underestimate what a pissed-off mob can do.

Dadawg_77
10-15-2003, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
No. I want the media to do their job-- at least pretend to do their job.

He is home.

He is safe.

His name will come out anyway.

George what you are failing to explain is how by not reporting his name is the media not doing its job? What relevances does the name have to the story? Does it add anything or only destroy this guys life?

MarqSox
10-15-2003, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
H-O-O-T-E-R-V-I-L-L-E.

He is home.

He is safe.

His name will come out eventually anyway.
You'd get an F in a Media Ethics class if you tried to argue this case, PHG. This isn't lazy journalism or anything like that, this is called Doing The Right Thing.

inta
10-15-2003, 10:28 AM
yeah, i dont think many Orioles fans drove down to NYC to find that kid.... also he was just a 12 yr old kid.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-15-2003, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
George what you are failing to explain is how by not reporting his name is the media not doing its job? What relevances does the name have to the story? Does it add anything or only destroy this guys life?

Umm... because 3 million people want to know?

Look, it is going to come out who he is anyway. It happens either now, or it happens later, but it will DEFINITELY come out.

Why even debate this? I'm focusing on the media's behavior. Everyone who ever whined about the media's behavior (and we have legions of them here at WSI) ought to be asking themselves these same questions I am posing.

Lazy. Parochial. Patronizing. Uncompetitive. Definitely not worthy of NYC. Chicago = Hooterville?

PaleHoseGeorge
10-15-2003, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by MarqSox
You'd get an F in a Media Ethics class if you tried to argue this case, PHG. This isn't lazy journalism or anything like that, this is called Doing The Right Thing.

Patronizing.

anewman35
10-15-2003, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Umm... because 3 million people want to know?

Look, it is going to come out who he is anyway. It happens either now, or it happens later, but it will DEFINITELY come out.

Why even debate this? I'm focusing on the media's behavior. Everyone who ever whined about the media's behavior (and we have legions of them here at WSI) ought to be asking themselves these same questions I am posing.

Lazy. Parochial. Patronizing. Uncompetitive. Definitely not worthy of NYC. Chicago = Hooterville?

That's like saying "national security secrets are going to come out eventully, so why not just tell them to everybody now?" Or saying "people are going to break the law, so why not stop enforcing them?"

It will be very different if the name comes out today or if it comes out in a month. In a month, people will have calmed down and it might be ok. Please tell me, if his name comes out tonight, and the Cubs lose, where do you think the big mob on Waveland is going to head?

MarqSox
10-15-2003, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Umm... because 3 million people want to know?

Look, it is going to come out who he is anyway. It happens either now, or it happens later, but it will DEFINITELY come out.

Why even debate this? I'm focusing on the media's behavior. Everyone who ever whined about the media's behavior (and we have legions of them here at WSI) ought to be asking themselves these same questions I am posing.

Lazy. Parochial. Patronizing. Uncompetitive. Definitely not worthy of NYC. Chicago = Hooterville?
Since when is "desire to know" the barometer of newsworthiness? 50 million people would like to know the name of Kobe Bryant's accuser, but I don't hear you calling for that to be plastered in the New York Times.

An innocent kid's safety is at risk here. Why do you think the majority of the "3 million people" who want to know actually want to know? It's so they can look this guy up and go to his house and make his life hell. Ethics, George, ethics. Maybe his info will come out. Does that make it OK to do? C'mon, any paper that publishes this guy's name is tabloid and sensationalist.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-15-2003, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by anewman35
That's like saying "national security secrets are going to come out eventully, so why not just tell them to everybody now?" Or saying "people are going to break the law, so why not stop enforcing them?"

It will be very different if the name comes out today or if it comes out in a month. In a month, people will have calmed down and it might be ok. Please tell me, if his name comes out tonight, and the Cubs lose, where do you think the big mob on Waveland is going to head?


Giving out national security secrets would be breaking the law. Try again.

Are you saying the media has a right to filter the news they give us? Do you expect 3 million readers and listeners to march on this guy's house?

Are *YOU PERSONALLY* a danger to this man? If so, the media has a point. You are a child to be treated as such.

If anything, the media's job is explain why it is not this fan's fault. It is the job of the media to shine a bright light on the brutish behavior and life-threatening statements many "fans" have expressed towards this guy. A media blackout has nothing to do with that.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-15-2003, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by MarqSox
Since when is "desire to know" the barometer of newsworthiness? 50 million people would like to know the name of Kobe Bryant's accuser, but I don't hear you calling for that to be plastered in the New York Times.

An innocent kid's safety is at risk here. Why do you think the majority of the "3 million people" who want to know actually want to know? It's so they can look this guy up and go to his house and make his life hell. Ethics, George, ethics. Maybe his info will come out. Does that make it OK to do? C'mon, any paper that publishes this guy's name is tabloid and sensationalist.

There are laws protecting the identity of Kobe's accuser. Try again.

anewman35
10-15-2003, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Giving out national security secrets would be breaking the law. Try again.

Are you saying the media has a right to filter the news they give us? Do you expect 3 million readers and listeners to march on this guy's house?

Are *YOU PERSONALLY* a danger to this man? If so, the media has a point. You are a child to be treated as such.

If anything, the media's job is explain why it is not this fan's fault. It is the job media to shine a bright light on the brutish behavior and life-threatening statements many "fans" have expressed towards this guy. A media blackout has nothing to do that.

I don't expect 3 million readers and listeners to march on his house. I personally am not going to march on his house. But, out of those 3 million people, don't you think at least a few would? Don't you think, just maybe, one of those 3 million might just have a little too much to drink and decide to take out his frustration on somebody? And let me ask you, how many people does it take to kill somebody? Is it 3 million? Or is it one?

You've heard what many Cubs fans have been saying. Why make it easier for them to do what they say they want to?

anewman35
10-15-2003, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
There are laws protecting the identity of Kobe's accuser. Try again.

Do you think there should be? Or should they just repeal them, since the name has come out various places already, so the law clearly didn't work?

MarqSox
10-15-2003, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
There are laws protecting the identity of Kobe's accuser. Try again.
Actually, no there aren't. She can't be mentioned by name IN COURT, but her name is public record. News organizations are protected by prior restraint laws they can be asked not to run her name, but if they do, there is nothing that can be done to punish them. Try again.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-15-2003, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by anewman35
I don't expect 3 million readers and listeners to march on his house. I personally am not going to march on his house. But, out of those 3 million people, don't you think at least a few would? Don't you think, just maybe, one of those 3 million might just have a little too much to drink and decide to take out his frustration on somebody? And let me ask you, how many people does it take to kill somebody? Is it 3 million? Or is it one?

You've heard what many Cubs fans have been saying. Why make it easier for them to do what they say they want to?

EXACTLY. You aren't a threat to him, and neither are 99.99 percent of us. Yet the media treats *all of us* like children for the 1 or 2 that are so crazy, they'll go after this guy today, tomorrow, or 20 years from now. The guy's name WILL come out.

Is the media's job to cater to the lowest common denominator? That's news to me.

We're being patronized, or they're just plain lazy.

anewman35
10-15-2003, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
EXACTLY. You aren't a threat to him, and neither are 99.99 percent of us. Yet the media treats *all of us* like children for the 1 or 2 that are so crazy, they'll go after this guy today, tomorrow, or 20 years from now. The guy's name WILL come out.

Is the media's job to cater to the lowest common denominator? That's news to me.

We're being patronized, or they're just plain lazy.

I'm quite sure "lazy" has nothing to do with it, as I'm sure it would take one of these reporters at most a few hours to track this guy down.

I just want to know, though - WHY are you so insistant on having to know his name? What does that do for you? He didn't commit a crime, he didn't ask to be thrust into the spotlight, why must he be?

PaleHoseGeorge
10-15-2003, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by MarqSox
Actually, no there aren't. She can't be mentioned by name IN COURT, but her name is public record. News organizations are protected by prior restraint laws they can be asked not to run her name, but if they do, there is nothing that can be done to punish them. Try again.

That's criminal law. Any news organization out in front on this issue risks a big fat civil suit for identifying her precisely because criminal law protects her identity.

It's pointless trying to compare a rape victim seeking justice with a guy being protected from lunatics. We're the media's audience and we're not lunatics. Or are we?

MarqSox
10-15-2003, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Giving out national security secrets would be breaking the law. Try again.

Actually, no it wouldn't. See the Pentagon Papers case if news organizations obtain information lawfully (even if it was orginally stolen and given to them), prior restraint allows them to publish anything that is truthful. The White House would be breathing down their necks and they would never again get any access to government sources, but they have the RIGHT to report it. It wouldn't be breaking the law. Try again.

Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
If anything, the media's job is explain why it is not this fan's fault. It is the job of the media to shine a bright light on the brutish behavior and life-threatening statements many "fans" have expressed towards this guy. A media blackout has nothing to do with that.
You're right that the media's job here is explaining that it isn't his fault. They can do that job very effectively even without releasing his name.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-15-2003, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by anewman35
I'm quite sure "lazy" has nothing to do with it, as I'm sure it would take one of these reporters at most a few hours to track this guy down.

I just want to know, though - WHY are you so insistant on having to know his name? What does that do for you? He didn't commit a crime, he didn't ask to be thrust into the spotlight, why must he be?

I'm posing these questions to make you guys think. We tend to see things around here too much in black and white. These are LEGITIMATE questions to ask--but nobody is asking them.

It's the media on trial here.

dickallen15
10-15-2003, 10:54 AM
To name him would just cause more trouble for the guy. The funny thing is, when the ball was coming down 15 people were reaching for the ball. This guy touches it, and everybody, including the other 14 who were going for it calls him the moron. If the Cubs lose tonight, and this guy was named, it would only take 1 fool to make this situation a true tragedy.

anewman35
10-15-2003, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I'm posing these questions to make you guys think. We tend to see things around here too much in black and white. These are LEGITIMATE questions to ask--but nobody is asking them.

It's the media on trial here.

Nobody is asking the questions because everybody (except you, it seems) already knows the perfectly logical answers...

MarqSox
10-15-2003, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
EXACTLY. You aren't a threat to him, and neither are 99.99 percent of us. Yet the media treats *all of us* like children for the 1 or 2 that are so crazy, they'll go after this guy today, tomorrow, or 20 years from now. The guy's name WILL come out.

Is the media's job to cater to the lowest common denominator? That's news to me.

We're being patronized, or they're just plain lazy.
Ethically speaking (and you seem to be really ignoring ethics in this debate, it is THE factor), journalists are obligated to weigh the greater good of their reportage.

More information is almost always better than less information, but there are exceptions. In this case, the question is, "Is the greater good in making this guy's name public, or in withholding it for his safety?"

Well, what is gained by making it public? We get to know his name ... big whoop.

What is gained by withholding it? The odds that he (or his family!) will be attacked be deranged lunatics decreases. It still might happen lunatics are resourceful but the media shouldn't be contributing to his danger.

voodoochile
10-15-2003, 11:01 AM
You can bet they know who the guy is and are merely witholding the information. I agree that that is patronizing, but I think there are people out there who would definitely try to injure the guy. Releasing the info does no good except to create more news. If the flubbies win tonight, he will make a buck on the talk show circuit talking about his 24-hours of terror and if the team loses, he will probably have to move.

Inside of a week, his name, phone number and address will be all over the Internet anyway...

Hangar18
10-15-2003, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by MarqSox


Comparing him to Jeffrey Maier is wrong also. He HELPED the Yankees and became a celebrity for it. This kid RUINED the Cubs, and outing him in the media would be akin to signing his death certificate. Not cool.

HE DIDNT RUIN THE CUBS. You guys are letting the Media affect the way your thinking. The ball was in the Stands. Alou couldnt have reached it. The other fans in that section ALSO WENT FOR THE BALL. nothing was made of that. ALso.....they showed that guy sitting peacefully in the seats.......Everyone else DIDNT REALLY know what was going on....TIL THE MEDIA INFERRED THAT HE INTERFERED.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-15-2003, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by anewman35
Nobody is asking the questions because everybody (except you, it seems) already knows the perfectly logical answers...

Have you ever been to NYC? Have you ever read or listened to their media? Are they "illogical?"

Jerko
10-15-2003, 11:04 AM
C'mon! Cub fans are so cute and cuddly, and they would NEVER EVER do anything mean! It's not like they are Sox fans or anything! They just want to console the poor chap and tell him that he is welcome at tonight's game! There are no hard feelings! They are one happy family, they would never turn on one of their own!

You know what, I don't want anything to happen to the guy, but if it did it would at least show the world how ignorant and classless the Cub "fans" really are. Maybe the country needs a Cub Enema to get these animals back in their caves. Unfortunately, a Cub win tonight and all this goes for naught.

poorme
10-15-2003, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by Hangar18
Alou couldnt have reached it.

Huh? It would have landed right in his glove.

anewman35
10-15-2003, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by Hangar18
HE DIDNT RUIN THE CUBS. You guys are letting the Media affect the way your thinking. The ball was in the Stands. Alou couldnt have reached it. The other fans in that section ALSO WENT FOR THE BALL. nothing was made of that. ALso.....they showed that guy sitting peacefully in the seats.......Everyone else DIDNT REALLY know what was going on....TIL THE MEDIA INFERRED THAT HE INTERFERED.

Dude, stop the conspiricy talk and actually look at the play. Yes, it's not the one guy's fault, because other people were doing the same thing, and yes, it was in the stands. But there's a great chance Alou would have caught it, he even said it himself - if he couldn't have caught it, why wouldn't the Cubs have said that, to save the guy's life?

PaleHoseGeorge
10-15-2003, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by MarqSox
Ethically speaking (and you seem to be really ignoring ethics in this debate, it is THE factor), journalists are obligated to weigh the greater good of their reportage.

More information is almost always better than less information, but there are exceptions. In this case, the question is, "Is the greater good in making this guy's name public, or in withholding it for his safety?"

Well, what is gained by making it public? We get to know his name ... big whoop.

What is gained by withholding it? The odds that he (or his family!) will be attacked be deranged lunatics decreases. It still might happen lunatics are resourceful but the media shouldn't be contributing to his danger.

Yes, I am ignoring the "ethical" issue. The problem with "ethics" in this circumstance is that the charge of patronizing the audience can me made, too. As Sox Fans in Chicago, we know all about it. There are no shortage of threads around here making the same essential point I am making here.

Again, it's the media's behavior on trial.

MarqSox
10-15-2003, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
That's criminal law. Any news organization out in front on this issue risks a big fat civil suit for identifying her precisely because criminal law protects her identity.
Wrong again. The media is not bound by gag orders and such laws. She has ZERO libel suit ... to prove libel, you have to prove that the reportage was false. If the media names her, that isn't libel. And there's no other civil suit she could seek against the media if they tell the truth, they are 100% protected.

So the point remains, every day the media makes ethical decisions on what sort of information to release, and it's not based on fear of lawsuits. It's based on weighing the greater good.

anewman35
10-15-2003, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Have you ever been to NYC? Have you ever read or listened to their media? Are they "illogical?"

What? I'm not talking about NYC. I'm talking about one story. Maybe NYC would have reported this. I don't care. I'm proud the media isn't reporting his name, and I'll be disgusted if they do (without his permission, at least).

PaleHoseGeorge
10-15-2003, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by MarqSox
Wrong again. The media is not bound by gag orders and such laws. She has ZERO libel suit ... to prove libel, you have to prove that the reportage was false. If the media names her, that isn't libel. And there's no other civil suit she could seek against the media if they tell the truth, they are 100% protected.

So the point remains, every day the media makes ethical decisions on what sort of information to release, and it's not based on fear of lawsuits. It's based on weighing the greater good.

She can't seek damages against a TV station that didn't permit her a right to a fair trial? The TV station didn't take prejudicial action against the accuser?

At the very least the media outlet would have their court access restricted, wouldn't they?

Maybe that's why the Chicago media isn't saying anything? They don't want to lose their press passes to the Urinal?

:?: :smile:

PaleHoseGeorge
10-15-2003, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by anewman35
What? I'm not talking about NYC. I'm talking about one story. Maybe NYC would have reported this. I don't care. I'm proud the media isn't reporting his name, and I'll be disgusted if they do (without his permission, at least).

Well of course you're not talking about NYC. The behavior of the NYC media puts a torch to your notion about "illogical" behavior from the media. Is this Chicago or Hooterville we're discussing here?

voodoochile
10-15-2003, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by anewman35
What? I'm not talking about NYC. I'm talking about one story. Maybe NYC would have reported this. I don't care. I'm proud the media isn't reporting his name, and I'll be disgusted if they do (without his permission, at least).

The other side of that coin is that if the flubbies win tonight, it is a warm and silly moment in his life and you can bet he will make money and fame on it just the way Jeffrey Maiers did years ago...

A.T. Money
10-15-2003, 11:15 AM
All I know is if this happened to me, not only would I feel like **** if they lost Game 7, but there is no way in hell I would want my life in danger from this.

This is Chicago baseball. This would be their big chance to go to the big show. It's not like the Cubs (or Sox) get in the playoffs year after year. This is a huge deal. People will get pissed off. I certainly don't want to test the waters if they lose.

If the media doesn't release my name, then I'm thankful.

It's all about ethics. I think the kid's name is irrelevant at this point. He committed no crime. We see his face, it's all over the Internet. That's bad enough. Leave the kid alone. He feels bad enough.

I really doubt anyone around here would want their name released.......

Think of how ANGRY people can get from this.

The media is doing the right thing not releasing his name. I hope they never do.

anewman35
10-15-2003, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
The other side of that coin is that if the flubbies win tonight, it is a warm and silly moment in his life and you can bet he will make money and fame on it just the way Jeffrey Maiers did years ago...

Probably. But that's his choice, it shouldn't be forced upon him.

anewman35
10-15-2003, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Well of course you're not talking about NYC. The behavior of the NYC media puts a torch to your notion about "illogical" behavior from the media. Is this Chicago or Hooterville we're discussing here?

Tell me how you can be so sure that NYC would have reported this differently? And, no, you can't cite Jeffrey Mayer, this is a very different situtation.

And if it's all the Chicago media's fault, why hasn't ESPN or some national network (based out of NEW YORK!) found it out? They all ran stories on it, so they all must think it's a story.

TDog
10-15-2003, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Yes, I am ignoring the "ethical" issue. The problem with "ethics" in this circumstance is that the charge of patronizing the audience can me made, too. As Sox Fans in Chicago, we know all about it. There are no shortage of threads around here making the same essential point I am making here.

Again, it's the media's behavior on trial.

You are absolutely right.

The ethical issues are certainly up for debate, and I'm sure the decision concerning this guy's name was made by an editor and/or management. The fact that the Cubs themselves constitute such a large segment of the Chicago media brings other ethical questions into consideration.

If I were the reporter I wouldn't want to publish his name, unless it were in the context of an interview with the fan telling his side of the story. And even then, I would feel guilty if someone did harm to him because I published his name.

At the same time, I would expect that in a market like Chicago, his name would be part of the record.

I would fully expect his name to be everywhere if the incident had taken place down the left-field line at the Cell. And we would be having a different debate.

A.T. Money
10-15-2003, 11:29 AM
There ya go George.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/fan15.html

Now if he ends up dead, I can't wait to see the Sun-Times' reaction.

Irishsox1
10-15-2003, 11:30 AM
All of this leagal talk is way above my head, however I know a great attorney. He's a big Cubs fan and his lawfirm is Floppy, Hat & Dude. He was last seen stealing Chad Kruters hat.

Hangar18
10-15-2003, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by anewman35
Dude, stop the conspiricy talk and actually look at the play. Yes, it's not the one guy's fault, because other people were doing the same thing, and yes, it was in the stands. But there's a great chance Alou would have caught it, he even said it himself - if he couldn't have caught it, why wouldn't the Cubs have said that, to save the guy's life?

DID is say the WORD CONSPIRACY just because I say the MEDIA ACTED IRRESPONSIBLY last nite by IMPLYING that there was Interference? They were hard up for a story, and sure enough, thats what everyones talking about

cheeses_h_rice
10-15-2003, 11:31 AM
"I'm a Bartman, and a Cubs fan."

*****.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-15-2003, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by anewman35
Tell me how you can be so sure that NYC would have reported this differently? And, no, you can't cite Jeffrey Mayer, this is a very different situtation.

And if it's all the Chicago media's fault, why hasn't ESPN or some national network (based out of NEW YORK!) found it out? They all ran stories on it, so they all must think it's a story.

They are definitely different stories. The single-biggest difference is that one happened in Yankee Stadium and the other at the Urinal in Chicago.

The national media is based in NYC. This story isn't in their backyard. Even the national media relies on their Chicago-based correspondents to get the dish.

Are you forgetting the Chicago media uproar when that reporter from Sports Illustrated tried to get Shammy to pee into a cup after Scammy said he would be first to take a drug screening? Hmmm?

This is called hypocrisy... Chicago media hypocrisy.

A.T. Money
10-15-2003, 11:35 AM
THE NAME HAS BEEN RELEASED

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/fan15.html

thepaulbowski
10-15-2003, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by Hangar18
HE DIDNT RUIN THE CUBS. You guys are letting the Media affect the way your thinking. The ball was in the Stands. Alou couldnt have reached it. The other fans in that section ALSO WENT FOR THE BALL. nothing was made of that. ALso.....they showed that guy sitting peacefully in the seats.......Everyone else DIDNT REALLY know what was going on....TIL THE MEDIA INFERRED THAT HE INTERFERED.

So the media had already brainwashed the people at the stadium, outside the stadium & those in the bars before they even saw TV and/or the radio. Wow, talk about being good. This kid was tried on the spot and presumed guilty by fans.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-15-2003, 11:36 AM
Originally posted by A.T. Money
There ya go George.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/fan15.html

Now if he ends up dead, I can't wait to see the Sun-Times' reaction.

Wow! Thanks for the link, Money. I really wish the Sun-Times time-stamped their material. Did this make the morning's edition or was it just added now?

Okay all you journalism majors and media ethics critics... time to step up to the plate.

Was the Sun-Times right to give out this guy's name NOW rather than later?

Somebody has to decide these issues. Aren't you glad WSI is making you think for yourself and rationally determine your *own* answer rather than sheepishly accepting what is given you?

:cool:

anewman35
10-15-2003, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
They are definitely different stories. The single-biggest difference is that one happened in Yankee Stadium and the other at the Urinal in Chicago.


The single biggest difference is that in New York, people loved the kid. Here, people hate the guy. Just a slight difference there, isn't there?

thepaulbowski
10-15-2003, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by A.T. Money
THE NAME HAS BEEN RELEASED

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/fan15.html

If any thing happens to this kid, I smell lawsuit.

Or an episode of Law & Order :D:

MarqSox
10-15-2003, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by A.T. Money
There ya go George.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/fan15.html

Now if he ends up dead, I can't wait to see the Sun-Times' reaction.
I'm in shock. I don't even know what to say ...

anewman35
10-15-2003, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by A.T. Money
THE NAME HAS BEEN RELEASED

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/fan15.html

I see that. Doesn't mean it's right, and it doesn't mean this arguement is over. Personally, I've never had even the slightest bit of respect for the Sun-Times, so it doesn't surprise me one bit that they were first.

ode to veeck
10-15-2003, 11:40 AM
It's the media on trial here.

And the verdict is .... RESPONSIBLE not sensationalist

PHG, why would we want Chicago or other national media to mimic NYC?! The NY Post and Daily News are like local bad versions of the enquirer, the sun etc. Yeah, the Cubune and Dumb-times have their gaps (one being the evil empire, the other dumb enough to maintain a staffer like Moronotti), but do you recommend the local media follow the lemmings of yellow journalism to the sea of infamy and misinformation, ever closer to being the true opiate of the people?

What is the news value of outing the unfortunate dumb fan? Well yes, more ugly sensationalist Cubfandom thrashing in the public eye. But I prefer accuracy over docudrama every time, and in the reality of last night's collapse, there's at least 3 or 4 more significant mental and physical errors in Flubdom that deserve more mention:

(1) Gonzalez' gaff on the easy grounder, while perhaps not the DP, but 99.999% confidence should be "close to door closing" big 2nd out, holding the runners in place and score still at 3-1, leaving Prior or Barnsworthless in a much more commanding position. Should the Fish win tonight, this one should be epic in proportion to the greatest collapse of all time, directly akin to former Cub Billy Buckner's flub for the wrong sox against the Mets and Durham's flub in the 5th game agains the Padres.

(2) Dusty not responding to the critical situation with two runners on and Prior's breaking stuff clearly not the same in the 8th

(3) Sham-Me totally missing the cut off while the runner was 1/2 way to 2nd, an easy out missed and barely mentioned anywhere.

(4) Taking Prior out before the intentional walk, making the still warming up Farmclub throw four pitchouts as his first real game balls--you never see this happen--another critical mgr oversight from the dissarray of the moment---with the 1 pitch sac fly and following 2nd intentional pass, poor Farnsworthless threw his 2nd "to count" pitch after 8 pitchouts and one real pitch---and completed the Cubbie disaster with the base clearing double to break the Flubbies backs

not to mention that it was still very iffy on whether Moises would have caught that ball, up high over the wall extending a stab in midleap as the ball dropped; he had a shot at it for sure, but no certain out at all

you may call the media patronizing on this one, but I prefer a little responsibility (even though we might think its missplaced in the context of a Cub fan) and even though they are far from journalistically accurate or responsible 99% of the time

thepaulbowski
10-15-2003, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by anewman35
I see that. Doesn't mean it's right, and it doesn't mean this arguement is over. Personally, I've never had even the slightest bit of respect for the Sun-Times, so it doesn't surprise me one bit that they were first.

Maybe they will change their name to the Chicago Post.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-15-2003, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by MarqSox
I'm in shock. I don't even know what to say ...

Okay, so I'm putting you down in the "definitely later" camp. You live in Wisconsin, right?

Which model of media ethics is acceptable in Chicago, NYC's or Hooterville's? How long is long enough?

MarqSox
10-15-2003, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Wow! Thanks for the link, Money. I really wish the Sun-Times time-stamped their material. Did this make the morning's edition or was it just added now?

Okay all you journalism majors and media ethics critics... time to step up to the plate.

Was the Sun-Times right to give out this guy's name NOW rather than later?

Somebody has to decide these issues. Aren't you glad WSI is making you think for yourself and rationally determine your *own* answer rather than sheepishly accepting what is given you?

:cool:
It was absolutely wrong and is just a grab for publicity, which the ST obviously got. It's too bad. I feel for that kid.

MarqSox
10-15-2003, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Okay, so I'm putting you down in the "definitely later" camp. You live in Wisconsin, right?

Which model of media ethics is acceptable in Chicago, NYC's or Hooterville's? How long is long enough?
Had my journalism training at a highly respected J school which places a huge emphasis on ethics, if you couldn't tell. I'm in the "Never, unless he comes forward himself" camp. Even with his name out there now, if I were editing the Tribune, he'd still be anonymous in my paper.

A.T. Money
10-15-2003, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Wow! Thanks for the link, Money. I really wish the Sun-Times time-stamped their material. Did this make the morning's edition or was it just added now?

Okay all you journalism majors and media ethics critics... time to step up to the plate.

Was the Sun-Times right to give out this guy's name NOW rather than later?

Somebody has to decide these issues. Aren't you glad WSI is making you think for yourself and rationally determine your *own* answer rather than sheepishly accepting what is given you?

:cool:

I got an email at work with the link, so I'm not sure. I think it was just within this hour.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-15-2003, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by MarqSox
Had my journalism training at a highly respected J school which places a huge emphasis on ethics, if you couldn't tell. I'm in the "Never, unless he comes forward himself" camp. Even with his name out there now, if I were editing the Tribune, he'd still be anonymous in my paper.

That's fine. You've reached your own decision and I applaud you for it. You aren't being spoon-fed when you're thinking for yourself. :cool:

Here's a legitimate question:

Is your view of Chicagoans' behavior colored by living in Wisconsin? You live in close proximity, but you mostly see the tourists passing through your corner of the world.

Is it relevant that you mistakenly thought the Lincoln Park Trixies satirical website was in fact a legitimate advocacy site for a segment of real-life Chicagoans? Most of us (the Chicagoans anyway) knew better.

:?: :smile:

faneidde
10-15-2003, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by MarqSox
It was absolutely wrong and is just a grab for publicity, which the ST obviously got. It's too bad. I feel for that kid.
I couldn't agree more. This is going to backfire on the ST.

maurice
10-15-2003, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
She can't seek damages against a TV station that didn't permit her a right to a fair trial?

No. The station has a golden First Amendment defense. She doesn't have a "right to a fair trial," since she's not on trial and is not even a party to the action. It's the State of Colorado v. Kobe Bryant. The gag order applies to the attorneys and not to the press (though the prosecution seems to be ignoring it). I understand that some media outlets (particularly in California) already released her name.

As a matter of ethics, I think that the Sun-Times should have refrained from naming him. The man is very clearly in danger. From the Cub-Times (http://www.suntimes.com/output/cubs/spx-news-gside15.html):

"Alou jumped out of control in anger, reportedly yelling an obscenity at the fan. A few minutes later, the man cried while holding a sweater over his face as three security guards escorted him in safety out of the stands. Later, they gave the man, maybe 25 years old and 5-7, a tan jacket as a disguise so he could leave the stadium safely. Cubs security wouldn't release the man's name, saying they worried for his safety. . . .

"Did you see the replay? Did he interfere?'' asked fan Paul Springer, who was sitting two rows behind the unnamed man. Yes, he deflected the ball, though it was on the fans' side of the railing. "Then they should kill him."

Afterward, the man just sat there. Sat there listening to his headphones as if he had no idea of what the heck he had done to the Cubs, the fans, the city. History. And that seemed to gall the fans near him. They threw beer at him, screamed "Thanks a lot, [expletive]."

"He had those headphones on and wasn't paying attention," Springer said. "He was just sitting there in the whole maelstrom." The maelstrom included the fans chanting an obscenity. Outside the stadium, people looked for the man, figuring he had been thrown out. Some fans in the stands ran down from nearby to yell at the guy or worse. Security escorted several people out of Wrigley Field. . . .

A man named Matt, who wouldn't give his last name, sat nearby. "It's a good thing they got him out of there," Matt said. "They were going to beat the hell out of the guy. He was going to die."

ode to veeck
10-15-2003, 12:03 PM
Which model of media ethics is acceptable in Chicago, NYC's or Hooterville's?

Neither !! , for sure I would not want the my local (Chicago or other) media to follow 99% of the really awful journalistic trends of NYC, nor would I want them to remain in the sticks or the wilderness of reporting, if you want Hooterville, try the print media here on the left coast, where I can write and spell better than the pathetic Chronicle while the LA Times with its large staff slips ever closer to the Enquirer themselves in LA LA land

The attemp to simile NYC media is one critical place where your argument breaks down, PHG. Reportage in Chicago actually has some historical repute (relative to East Coast) for accuracy over sensational and straightforward concise content (though they also have a long history of the most yellow journalism in many cases (current Flubs vs Sox cpoverage & the origin of the term Windy City for a couple of cases among many)

Stick to the principles (ethics vs patronage vs accuracy vs manipulation etc), and there's a more meaningful argument. As far as NY goes, I always enjoyed the quality of the content and writing of the Times, but was really appalled (and still am) by the rest of their junk on the newstands and in the subways when I first encountered it many many many moons ago.

thepaulbowski
10-15-2003, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by MarqSox
Had my journalism training at a highly respected J school which places a huge emphasis on ethics, if you couldn't tell. I'm in the "Never, unless he comes forward himself" camp. Even with his name out there now, if I were editing the Tribune, he'd still be anonymous in my paper.

Did you really need an ethics course to tell you this? I have a feeling not. I have no J training, but I can't imagine what good could come of releasing his name. They are just asking for trouble, IMO. Personal safety is more important that somebody "just wanting to know." It's amazing how a little thing like this (remember people this is only sports, it doesn't REALLY matter in the end) can change somebody's life for the worse in a hearbeat.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-15-2003, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by ode to veeck
Neither !! , for sure I would not want the my local (Chicago or other) media to follow 99% of the really awful journalistic trends of NYC, nor would I want them to remain in the sticks or the wilderness of reporting, if you want Hooterville, try the print media here on the left coast, where I can write and spell better than the pathetic Chronicle while the LA Times with its large staff slips ever closer to the Enquirer themselves in LA LA land

The attemp to simile NYC media is one critical place where your argument breaks down, PHG. Reportage in Chicago actually has some historical repute (relative to East Coast) for accuracy over sensational and straightforward concise content (though they also have a long history of the most yellow journalism in many cases (current Flubs vs Sox cpoverage & the origin of the term Windy City for a couple of cases among many)

Stick to the principles (ethics vs patronage vs accuracy vs manipulation etc), and there's a more meaningful argument. As far as NY goes, I always enjoyed the quality of the content and writing of the Times, but was really appalled (and still am) by the rest of their junk on the newstands and in the subways when I first encountered it many many many moons ago.

NYC vs. Hooterville is just my rhetorical device to illustrate the two extremes. Clearly most people would say something in the middle. That's my point.

So the key question, again, must be asked:

How long should the Chicago media wait? The real-life answer is ~13 hours. That's how long it took the Sun-Times to publish his name.

What is the answer for you? You're dodging the question by saying neither. His name is going to come out, sooner or later, regardless of what answer you give.

anewman35
10-15-2003, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge

What is the answer for you? You're dodging the question by saying neither. His name is going to come out, sooner or later, regardless of what answer you give.

My answer depends on tonight. At least until after tonight's game, and if the Cubs win, then release away. If the Cubs don't, at least a few days, maybe even weeks. People need a cooling off period, and in this case they didn't get it.

TDog
10-15-2003, 12:11 PM
Newspapers couldn't protect this guy if they wanted to, not in the age of e-mail.

Sportswriters/editors get a lot more distasteful than anyone could find this. My favorite bad newspaper example was in the Indianapolis Star in 1976, during Indiana University's undefeated, national championship basketball season. Midway through the Big Ten schedule in a game against Michigan, Bobby Knight grabbed a player (Wayne Radford?) off the court in a most unappealing way. The Star ran the picture big and put Knight's unpublished home telephone number in the caption for people who wanted to complain to him personally.

poorme
10-15-2003, 12:18 PM
You guys can argue the ethics of publishing his name in the newspaper, but it doesn't matter. His name would be all over the web for anyone who wanted to kill him. The man (not kid) has to make like David Janssen pronto.

anewman35
10-15-2003, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by poorme
You guys can argue the ethics of publishing his name in the newspaper, but it doesn't matter. His name would be all over the web for anyone who wanted to kill him.

It wouldn't be (at least not anywhere near as fast) if the Sun-times and Smoking Gun hadn't reported on it.

MarqSox
10-15-2003, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
That's fine. You've reached your own decision and I applaud you for it. You aren't being spoon-fed when you're thinking for yourself. :cool:

Here's a legitimate question:

Is your view of Chicagoans' behavior colored by living in Wisconsin? You live in close proximity, but you mostly see the tourists passing through your corner of the world.

Is it relevant that you mistakenly thought the Lincoln Park Trixies satirical website was in fact a legitimate advocacy site for a segment of real-life Chicagoans? Most of us (the Chicagoans anyway) knew better.

:?: :smile:
Ouch, I knew that would bite me in the ass. OK, so I had my blonde ditzy moment. :D:

Anyway, I spent the first 18 years of my life in the West Suburbs, so I still consider myself a Chicagoan. Went to school in Milwaukee then moved to Podunk Wisconsin for a job. I've only been away for a few years, I think I understand Chicago pretty well.

poorme
10-15-2003, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
It wouldn't be (at least not anywhere near as fast) if the Sun-times and Smoking Gun hadn't reported on it.

Ok. It would've taken 2 days instead of 1. A thousand nutcases would have stopped at nothing to find out the name.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-15-2003, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by MarqSox
Ouch, I knew that would bite me in the ass. OK, so I had my blonde ditzy moment. :D:

Anyway, I spent the first 18 years of my life in the West Suburbs, so I still consider myself a Chicagoan. Went to school in Milwaukee then moved to Podunk Wisconsin for a job. I've only been away for a few years, I think I understand Chicago pretty well.

Good answer. It's hard for born and bred Wisconsinites to be rational thinkers about Chicagoans-- for very good reasons completely beyond anyone's control. :smile:

Just so there is no misunderstanding, let me say I really feel bad for this poor sap of a Cubs fan. Being placed in the media spotlight was 100 percent a fluke. He had a better chance of being hit by lightning than ever having something like this happen to him. It's very, very sad...

It's times like these that I'm glad I'm not the editor-in-chief of a marginalized Chicago tabloid trying to decide where my journalistic ethics start and my responsibilities to ownership begin. There is no "right" answer, and that's where all the anxiety begins.

:(:

Hangar18
10-15-2003, 12:39 PM
This is CLEARLY an example of Media Gone Wild. FOX, in a move to Try and Create a Controversy when there really wasnt, Continued to show the Section and the Fans....even if the volume was turned down, you could tell FOX was trying for a "moment".
Others in that section had no idea what was going on....til some of them got calls on their cell phones informing them of what FOX was Implying. Then of course, you hear all the other stuff. They whole section was going for the ball, he just happened to be sititng in the wrong place. ITS IRRESPONSIBLE on teh CubTimes part, to take this to the NExt Step, and do a story on HIM and Mention his name....AS IF THEY WANT TO BE READY TO COVER THE (from Oct 27,2003 suntimes) "Man Beaten by Cub Mob" which the substory by MORONOTTI will be "Cub Fans Defy Stereotype, Really Do Care" regarding mob justice.

This was just another way to create a Mike Kiley Moment

Risk
10-15-2003, 12:44 PM
Saw this sign (really funny) (no link)

Playoff tickets at Wrigley (aka the Dark Hole): $200
new Cubs hat: $20
1987 Walkman: $10

Showing the world the utmost ineptitude and stupidity of a luckless, classless and over-hyped organization and its fans and potentially screwing them out of a trip to the World Series: Priceless

Pretty dumb, but thought it was funny

Risk :)

cheeses_h_rice
10-15-2003, 12:52 PM
Interesting to note that the Cubune's new article about the fan does NOT identify him or where he works:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-031015fan,1,5442644.story?coll=chi-homepage-fea

alohafri
10-15-2003, 01:23 PM
It's not like the media infiltrated a PRIVATE event and then leaked out someone's name...which would be totally unethical and very sleazy. That's what the Inquirer is known for.

This was a case where in a PUBLIC place a misguided fan made a mistake. He didn't do anything wrong. He chose to go to a PUBLIC event, attended by dozens of reporters, in view of dozens of cameras. Just because thousands of idiot cub fans (an oxymoron) can't control themselves and are too stupid to understand that the guy did NOTHING wrong, does not mean the media has any responsibility to withhold the guy's name.

If the guy has a problem with the media, perhaps he should stay away form public places where lots of media are present. Or at the very least, don't do anything that might attract the media's attention.....

JMHO

Mrs. Aloha

MarqSox
10-15-2003, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by alohafri

If the guy has a problem with the media, perhaps he should stay away form public places where lots of media are present. Or at the very least, don't do anything that might attract the media's attention.....

Yeah but that's just it ... he didn't DO anything. Maybe some posters here really would have gotten out of the way, but until you're in that moment, it's unfair to criticize this dude.

Chisox353014
10-15-2003, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by dickallen15
To name him would just cause more trouble for the guy. The funny thing is, when the ball was coming down 15 people were reaching for the ball. This guy touches it, and everybody, including the other 14 who were going for it calls him the moron. If the Cubs lose tonight, and this guy was named, it would only take 1 fool to make this situation a true tragedy.

Exactly. If it wasn't that particular guy who touched the ball, it would have been any number of others. The real story here should be how dumb Cub fans are as a group. :D:

As far as ethics go, ask yourself this: if this were my kid brother at a Sox game who did the same thing, would you want his name released to the entire world?