Sunday, October 29, 2006

The media

Short post today. Especially since I've been ranting about the Quavale Finnell case and the fact that people jump to all sort of conclusions based on what they hear on the news and their interpretations of it, I'd like to offer you this little news blip.
Deputy fired after fight.
It's already obvious from the short article that this isn't the whole story. What you have to love, when you know the real story, is reading how it's so twisted by the media. This shouldn't be a surprise to anybody, especially the other LEOs out there who probably end up in the news more times than they care to remember. What I'm basically saying today is that you should never believe what you read in the newspaper, 100%. Ever. I'm not saying that there aren't remnants of facts in the article. There was a deputy fired, and it was after a fight.
It's just frustrating that the general public who wasn't there and doesn't know the truth will read this article and automatically make their own judgment on erroneous information. Exactly the same as with Quavale Finnell and Bennie Hall.


Axinar said...

Actually that article is SO short that it would be hard to say that there is a "spin" to it.

Not that most media outlets dont' have a spin - PBS ("NOW with David Brancaccio" for instance) on the far left and Fox News reasonable on the far right with both usually claiming to be "fair and balanced".

What's a LEO?

FroneAmy said...

LEO = Law Enforcement Officer. Kind of a general term to lump in Deputies, Cops, and Troopers.

If you know what actually happened, you'd know the article is incorrect. I'm not really at liberty to say more, other than the fact that the article isn't correct. My point is, no matter how short n sweet the article is, you just can't trust the media. Even when the article looks to be cut and dry, like this one. It's not. That's why they love words like "allegedly."

Axinar said...

Well, no, this particular article is not detailed.

"Allegedly" simply means that those are the charges and specifications that the person hasn't been convicted of yet, even if there is compelling evidence (security camera tape, etc.).

Now, as for the original article you mentioned -

As short as it is, there is only one pertinent question - did someone lay hands on someone else on the clock?

Cop the Truth said...

I don't believe anything I hear and only half of what I see, especially when it comes to the MSM. Sad really, but that's the way it is.

FroneAmy said...

As I said, there was a fight, and one guy got fired.
There have been other incidents where people got in fights, on the clock, and didn't get fired. And just because you pay taxes doesn't mean you get to make the rules.
If you read the article, you'd have read that Major John Newsom said there are no charges being filed. Therefore, 'allegedly' doesn't have the meaning you have given it. Guess you don't write the dictionary either :)
There was an internal investigation, and one person was fired. So if you want to look at it that way, one deputy was found 'guilty' of what he was accused of. So allegedly isn't in terms of guilt or innocence by the law.
At least the article did use allegedly to allow that it may not have happened the way they wrote it.
Again, my point is, you can't believe everything you read in the paper. Or hear on Tv. Or, well, anything, really.

Axinar said...

Yes, in fact I believe you may be correct - "allegedly" CAN be used in the broader scope to mean that someone was ACCUSED of something by someone, but not necessarily formally charged.

The gist of the original article is that Ryan Saylor, a Warren County Sherriff's Deputy, was fired on 10/18 for, presumably to the satisfaction of his supervisors, having "tackled" another deputy, Scott Stavermann, during some sort of argument on 9/15.

Now - what part of this is factually incorrect and, if any part of it IS, in fact, incorrect, how do you KNOW it is incorrect?

Anonymous said...

What I find hilarious about this post is that you say that the people who weren't there make their own judgement without knowing the facts. Well, you weren't there. So how can you make yours? There are two people who know the exact truth of the situation, and they are not you or me, or your husband for that matter. They are the only ones that can comment on this situation, if it was something that could be discussed. Talking about the issue wasn't what I had a problem with, it was the fact that you want to "slam" the people who wrote the articles on the subject for writing what they did, and the supposed twist they put on the issue. How is your post not the same? You DO NOT KNOW the facts of this case. You were not there. And I'm tired of reading the posts you have about certain topics you know nothing about. I'm pretty sure that is exactly what you were denouncing the reporters for doing, isn't it. Speech is a freedom, I realize that. Say what you will, I don't have to read it, and I won't. If they're smart, others won't either. Oh, and kudos to axinar, his last statement posted at 9:51, oct 31 was great. I noticed there wasn't a reply.

FroneAmy said...

If you're sick of reading things you don't know about, don't read my blog.

And there were more than two people present at the situation. My husband was. And he DID comment on the situation. And I do know the facts of the situation. You don't. So there you go. Quit fucking reading my blog if you don't like it.

I don't have to respond to Axinar's comment because I already told him that I didn't have to justify what I wrote.