southsider2k5 Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 17, 2012 -> 07:44 PM) More like... how many of them are bothered by the excessive media coverage, to the point of ranting about it Still me. I got to the point where I scrolled past it, especially when it had to do with the f***ing idiots on campus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 17, 2012 -> 08:27 PM) I'd like to see some kind of cross-section between the people who think Zimmerman is not/will not get a fair trial and is being treated unfairly to see how many of them also think that about Jerry Sandusky... just out of curiosity. Are changes of venue much more rare than I think they are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 17, 2012 -> 08:45 PM) Still me. I got to the point where I scrolled past it, especially when it had to do with the f***ing idiots on campus. It started making me uncomfortable. I don't like how the coverage of Treyvon has become a major ordeal in the media and a social media cause and everything. The point of it all was completely lost, most of the things people are arguing about now is actually irrelevant to the central point (like Trayvon writing dumb s*** on his Twitter, marijuana residue in his bag, etc). I changed my profile pic on Facebook to a hoodie before everyone else was doing it because everyone else was doing it and I listed specific reasons why I was doing it... all that's been diluted and it's turned into a bunch of people shouting at each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 QUOTE (lostfan @ Apr 17, 2012 -> 07:48 PM) It started making me uncomfortable. I don't like how the coverage of Treyvon has become a major ordeal in the media and a social media cause and everything. The point of it all was completely lost, most of the things people are arguing about now is actually irrelevant to the central point (like Trayvon writing dumb s*** on his Twitter, marijuana residue in his bag, etc). I changed my profile pic on Facebook to a hoodie before everyone else was doing it because everyone else was doing it and I listed specific reasons why I was doing it... all that's been diluted and it's turned into a bunch of people shouting at each other. The big difference is it is about impossible to turn Sandusky into a victim here. There is at least a scenario (however you view the odds of it being true) where you can feel sorry for Zimmerman. Sandusky is still a f***ing child molester. There is zero debate about that. That is the lowest of low in the court of public opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 17, 2012 -> 07:55 PM) The big difference is it is about impossible to turn Sandusky into a victim here. There is at least a scenario (however you view the odds of it being true) where you can feel sorry for Zimmerman. Sandusky is still a f***ing child molester. There is zero debate about that. That is the lowest of low in the court of public opinion. I love this post. There is absolutely no way that the victims lied about Sandusky? It may be improbable, but its possible. Or what about Paterno, no possible way that what he was told was misconstrued or that he really didnt know what was going on? Lost, As for media coverage, you cant trust the media when it comes to legal issues. They purposefully misconstrue the information because sensationalism sells. No one wants to watch a news program that says "Well right now its entirely speculation, so lets wait for the facts." Its always better to sensationalize the story, who cares about the truth. Edited April 18, 2012 by Soxbadger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 17, 2012 -> 09:05 PM) I love this post. There is absolutely no way that the victims lied about Sandusky? It may be improbable, but its possible. Or what about Paterno, no possible way that what he was told was misconstrued or that he really didnt know what was going on? Lost, As for media coverage, you cant trust the media when it comes to legal issues. They purposefully misconstrue the information because sensationalism sells. No one wants to watch a news program that says "Well right now its entirely speculation, so lets wait for the facts." Its always better to sensationalize the story, who cares about the truth. One of Gerald fine's accusers just came out and said he made the story up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted April 18, 2012 Author Share Posted April 18, 2012 I don't know how much of the media's accuracy is due to distortions and how much is due to incompetence/ignorance/being terrible at being journalists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 17, 2012 -> 08:05 PM) I love this post. There is absolutely no way that the victims lied about Sandusky? It may be improbable, but its possible. Or what about Paterno, no possible way that what he was told was misconstrued or that he really didnt know what was going on? Lost, As for media coverage, you cant trust the media when it comes to legal issues. They purposefully misconstrue the information because sensationalism sells. No one wants to watch a news program that says "Well right now its entirely speculation, so lets wait for the facts." Its always better to sensationalize the story, who cares about the truth. All of Sandusky's victims, together in concert? Down to the same details? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Would not be the first time that victims colluded to create a story. As I said, not probable, but definitely possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 17, 2012 -> 08:29 PM) Would not be the first time that victims colluded to create a story. As I said, not probable, but definitely possible. Great. Empty the jails because no one is guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 What does that have to do with anything? The comment was were people outraged about the media coverage, your answer was that it was impossible to believe Sandusky may be innocent, I said that its not impossible, you then relate it to emptying the jails? If you want to arrest everyone, why not Zimmerman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 17, 2012 -> 08:48 PM) What does that have to do with anything? The comment was were people outraged about the media coverage, your answer was that it was impossible to believe Sandusky may be innocent, I said that its not impossible, you then relate it to emptying the jails? If you want to arrest everyone, why not Zimmerman? Yes, it is impossible, unless you're related to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 17, 2012 -> 08:48 PM) What does that have to do with anything? The comment was were people outraged about the media coverage, your answer was that it was impossible to believe Sandusky may be innocent, I said that its not impossible, you then relate it to emptying the jails? If you want to arrest everyone, why not Zimmerman? If your burden of guilt is that 10+ people could have gotten together to fake everything, there is literally no one out there who is guilty. Got their DNA? The police department faked it. Plead guilty? They forced me into it when no one was looking. 10 people saw it happen? They are all lying and planned what to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 17, 2012 -> 08:59 PM) If your burden of guilt is that 10+ people could have gotten together to fake everything, there is literally no one out there who is guilty. Got their DNA? The police department faked it. Plead guilty? They forced me into it when no one was looking. 10 people saw it happen? They are all lying and planned what to say. Needless to say they're all like 12 years old, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 (edited) SS2k, What are you talking about? The Sandusky trial has not even started, what are you talking about with burdens of proof etc. The question was about media sensationalism. The sensationalism surrounding Sandusky occurred after a Grand Jury and an indictment. I seriously have no clue what you are talking about, because none of this has anything to do with whether or not at trial someone will be found innocent or guilty, it has everything to do with how you interpret unproven hearsay facts. You are taking the ones in Sandusky's case as proven, when they are not yet. Iamshack, Have you heard one witness testify? Because how can you determine their credibility? Im asking this honestly, because there is a very famous case involving the Triangle Shirt Factory where witness coaching supposedly came into play. I just dont know how anyone can make these sweeping claims without actually hearing the testimony. Edited April 18, 2012 by Soxbadger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 17, 2012 -> 09:02 PM) Needless to say they're all like 12 years old, too. Children cant lie? Are you seriously arguing that Sandusky should be convicted without a trial? Because what is the point of a trial if its impossible hes innocent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 17, 2012 -> 09:05 PM) SS2k, What are you talking about? The Sandusky trial has not even started, what are you talking about with burdens of proof etc. The question was about media sensationalism. The sensationalism surrounding Sandusky occurred after a Grand Jury and an indictment. I seriously have no clue what you are talking about, because none of this has anything to do with whether or not at trial someone will be found innocent or guilty, it has everything to do with how you interpret unproven hearsay facts. You are taking the ones in Sandusky's case as proven, when they are not yet. Iamshack, Have you heard one witness testify? Because how can you determine their credibility? Im asking this honestly, because there is a very famous case involving the Triangle Shirt Factory where witness coaching supposedly came into play. I just dont know how anyone can make these sweeping claims without actually hearing the testimony. You are the one calling them all liars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 17, 2012 -> 08:06 PM) Children cant lie? Are you seriously arguing that Sandusky should be convicted without a trial? Because what is the point of a trial if its impossible hes innocent? Yes, that's what I argued... Where, in the preceding posts, do you see anyone arguing that? Are you drunk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Its safer to believe that everyone in the world is lying until proven otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 QUOTE (iamshack @ Apr 17, 2012 -> 09:10 PM) Yes, that's what I argued... Where, in the preceding posts, do you see anyone arguing that? Are you drunk? What are you arguing? You said its impossible that Sandusky is innocent. If its impossible than shouldnt Sandusky go to jail on directed verdict? Why have a trial if its impossible? I dont think you should have a trial just to waste everyones time. So if there really is absolutely no chance Sandusky is innocent, why waste the money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 17, 2012 -> 08:13 PM) What are you arguing? You said its impossible that Sandusky is innocent. If its impossible than shouldnt Sandusky go to jail on directed verdict? Why have a trial if its impossible? I dont think you should have a trial just to waste everyones time. So if there really is absolutely no chance Sandusky is innocent, why waste the money? I said its impossible to believe he is innocent unless you are related to him. That does not equate to "let's convict him without a trial!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 I disagree with that premise. I think there is something like a .0001% chance that Sandusky is innocent. Its not likely, in fact its almost statistically insignificant, but there is a chance. If you dont think there is a chance, then there is no use for a trial. Why parade all the people up there, why waste everyones time? My reasoning is to get rid of that .0001%, to make sure to the best of my abilities that the right decision is being made. The only way to be absolutely sure is to hear the evidence and make a decision then. /shrugs We obviously have a fundamental difference of opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamshack Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Apr 17, 2012 -> 08:20 PM) I disagree with that premise. I think there is something like a .0001% chance that Sandusky is innocent. Its not likely, in fact its almost statistically insignificant, but there is a chance. If you dont think there is a chance, then there is no use for a trial. Why parade all the people up there, why waste everyones time? My reasoning is to get rid of that .0001%, to make sure to the best of my abilities that the right decision is being made. The only way to be absolutely sure is to hear the evidence and make a decision then. /shrugs We obviously have a fundamental difference of opinion. Your reason is to dispel a .0001 chance he is innocent, mine is because he has constitutional rights. Irregardless of that, you're just looking for an argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 Not really, I just think that the constitutional rights were given because there is always a chance, hence innocent until proven guilty. And its opinion so its not worth arguing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted April 18, 2012 Share Posted April 18, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Apr 17, 2012 -> 08:10 PM) I don't know how much of the media's accuracy is due to distortions and how much is due to incompetence/ignorance/being terrible at being journalists. The problem IMO is that journalism these days is all about the editorial. We no longer care to read just straight facts, we want to read someone's interesting take on the situation, or a new argument about the same issues, etc. Blogs are making this problem even worse. (Note: I'm not saying there isn't a value to that, but when that's 99% of the source for news there's a problem where the actual facts have become nearly irrelevant). That and for some reason we still have a pretty moronic populous that thinks Jesse Jackson and Sean Hannity speak the truth. Edited April 18, 2012 by Jenksismybitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts