The chicago Tribune ran this story and omitted numerous relevant facts.

Families of 5 Oswego crash victims brace for trial
Sandra Vasquez set for trial next month on reckless homicide, DUI charges in 2007 crash


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local...8287.story


It is common knowledge in the Oswego/Aurora community that all of the victims including the driver and passengers were at a party drinking until past 2:00 AM and were drunk. There is no mention in the article about that or asking any of the victims families why their 14, 15 or 16 year old kids are out at 2:30 in the morning and drinking. Why didn't the media ask Sandra Vasquez for her comments? Why does the media not present all facts good or bad? I have very little respect for the media and this case only confirms my worst fears. I believe that many stories are reported on incorrectly, or as in this case to make a point and damn the facts. Am I the only person who thinks this?

(05-30-2010 02:21 PM)Kevin S Wrote:  The chicago Tribune ran this story and omitted numerous relevant facts.

Families of 5 Oswego crash victims brace for trial
Sandra Vasquez set for trial next month on reckless homicide, DUI charges in 2007 crash


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local...8287.story


It is common knowledge in the Oswego/Aurora community that all of the victims including the driver and passengers were at a party drinking until past 2:00 AM and were drunk. There is no mention in the article about that or asking any of the victims families why their 14, 15 or 16 year old kids are out at 2:30 in the morning and drinking. Why didn't the media ask Sandra Vasquez for her comments? Why does the media not present all facts good or bad? I have very little respect for the media and this case only confirms my worst fears. I believe that many stories are reported on incorrectly, or as in this case to make a point and damn the facts. Am I the only person who thinks this?

First, "common knowlege" is not fact. If they did toxicological tests and came back positive and were indeed given to the media I would agree. However, being that they were minors, something tells me that the results weren't released(though you could prove me wrong here) thus making speculations could be grounds for a lawsuit. As for the Sandra question, I don't know. MAybe because her lawyer told her to be quit so she wasn't doing interviews? As I said, maybe they did present all the facts that they could legally do? What you are expecting a pare to do is report opinion. THat is left to Faux News, MSNBC and CNN(among other outlets) not actual news organizations that provide news.

(05-30-2010 05:35 PM)RobertN Wrote:  

(05-30-2010 02:21 PM)Kevin S Wrote:  The chicago Tribune ran this story and omitted numerous relevant facts.

Families of 5 Oswego crash victims brace for trial
Sandra Vasquez set for trial next month on reckless homicide, DUI charges in 2007 crash


http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local...8287.story


It is common knowledge in the Oswego/Aurora community that all of the victims including the driver and passengers were at a party drinking until past 2:00 AM and were drunk. There is no mention in the article about that or asking any of the victims families why their 14, 15 or 16 year old kids are out at 2:30 in the morning and drinking. Why didn't the media ask Sandra Vasquez for her comments? Why does the media not present all facts good or bad? I have very little respect for the media and this case only confirms my worst fears. I believe that many stories are reported on incorrectly, or as in this case to make a point and damn the facts. Am I the only person who thinks this?

First, "common knowlege" is not fact. If they did toxicological tests and came back positive and were indeed given to the media I would agree. However, being that they were minors, something tells me that the results weren't released(though you could prove me wrong here) thus making speculations could be grounds for a lawsuit. As for the Sandra question, I don't know. MAybe because her lawyer told her to be quit so she wasn't doing interviews? As I said, maybe they did present all the facts that they could legally do? What you are expecting a pare to do is report opinion. THat is left to Faux News, MSNBC and CNN(among other outlets) not actual news organizations that provide news.

Robert, here is the Myspace page of some of the people involved.

http://www.myspace.com/102254903

You mean to tell me that the Tribune could not do some investigative journalism and find out the facts.

Here is another link stating that all teens except one were drinking.

http://www.ledgersentinel.com/article.asp?a=6104

Yeah Rob, I'm sure they weren't drinking. Why would high school kids be out drinking past curfew???

The Tribune and Sun-Times have been forgetting and omitting certain facts about certain incidents to protect certain "groups of people" for years now. This should come as a surprise to no one.

(05-31-2010 01:12 AM)Sir Huskie Wrote:  Yeah Rob, I'm sure they weren't drinking. Why would high school kids be out drinking past curfew???

The Tribune and Sun-Times have been forgetting and omitting certain facts about certain incidents to protect certain "groups of people" for years now. This should come as a surprise to no one.

I said he could prove me wrong on the drinking part in an actual article. He did that. It looks like it was known. Maybe he should call the Tribune to find out why they didn't include it.

Maybe you and their parents should do a MUCH better job of parenting. If your kids are out at 2:30am drinking, as a parent you have FAILED. Did their parents even care that their kids are out drinking heavily? In this day and age, many parents think it is just a normal phase in life. They did it so they allow their kids to do it. It isn't a normal phase of life.

(05-31-2010 11:18 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 01:12 AM)Sir Huskie Wrote:  Yeah Rob, I'm sure they weren't drinking. Why would high school kids be out drinking past curfew???

The Tribune and Sun-Times have been forgetting and omitting certain facts about certain incidents to protect certain "groups of people" for years now. This should come as a surprise to no one.

I said he could prove me wrong on the drinking part in an actual article. He did that. It looks like it was known. Maybe he should call the Tribune to find out why they didn't include it.

Maybe you and their parents should do a MUCH better job of parenting. If your kids are out at 2:30am drinking, as a parent you have FAILED. Did their parents even care that their kids are out drinking heavily? In this day and age, many parents think it is just a normal phase in life. They did it so they allow their kids to do it. It isn't a normal phase of life.

One thing that is easy to prove is your an IDIOT!

(06-01-2010 09:48 AM)NIU Chicago Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 11:18 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 01:12 AM)Sir Huskie Wrote:  Yeah Rob, I'm sure they weren't drinking. Why would high school kids be out drinking past curfew???

The Tribune and Sun-Times have been forgetting and omitting certain facts about certain incidents to protect certain "groups of people" for years now. This should come as a surprise to no one.

I said he could prove me wrong on the drinking part in an actual article. He did that. It looks like it was known. Maybe he should call the Tribune to find out why they didn't include it.

Maybe you and their parents should do a MUCH better job of parenting. If your kids are out at 2:30am drinking, as a parent you have FAILED. Did their parents even care that their kids are out drinking heavily? In this day and age, many parents think it is just a normal phase in life. They did it so they allow their kids to do it. It isn't a normal phase of life.

One thing that is easy to prove is your an IDIOT!

Thanks.

Wait, there were 9 people in an infiniti sedan? Were they all clowns?!

(05-31-2010 11:18 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(05-31-2010 01:12 AM)Sir Huskie Wrote:  Yeah Rob, I'm sure they weren't drinking. Why would high school kids be out drinking past curfew???

The Tribune and Sun-Times have been forgetting and omitting certain facts about certain incidents to protect certain "groups of people" for years now. This should come as a surprise to no one.

I said he could prove me wrong on the drinking part in an actual article. He did that. It looks like it was known. Maybe he should call the Tribune to find out why they didn't include it.

Maybe you and their parents should do a MUCH better job of parenting. If your kids are out at 2:30am drinking, as a parent you have FAILED. Did their parents even care that their kids are out drinking heavily? In this day and age, many parents think it is just a normal phase in life. They did it so they allow their kids to do it. It isn't a normal phase of life.

Robert, I am not trying to knock anyone but I believe that Sir Huskie is right in saying "The Tribune and Sun-Times have been forgetting and omitting certain facts about certain incidents to protect certain "groups of people" for years now. This should come as a surprise to no one. "

I emailed the Tribune about all of the missing relevant facts and so far have not gotten a response back.

What angers me the most is that they are trying to make heroes out of some of the parents when (as your post stated) they should be questioning their parenting skills and poor judgment.

Unless you're going to say that certain victims at some level "deserved it" then what they were or weren't doing before the accident is irrelevant. Probing the parenting skills or the adequacy of the parenting is also irrelevant to a story about a legal proceeding.

Regardless of what they did or the quality of the parenting involved- what happened (death in a car wreck, loss of a loved one) far exceeds what anyone with a soul and/or brain would consider a fair negative consequence.

To me, the original post is looking for selacious tabloid-style reporting of the story, not news.

(06-01-2010 01:57 PM)DogTracks Wrote:  Unless you're going to say that certain victims at some level "deserved it" then what they were or weren't doing before the accident is irrelevant. Probing the parenting skills or the adequacy of the parenting is also irrelevant to a story about a legal proceeding.

Regardless of what they did or the quality of the parenting involved- what happened (death in a car wreck, loss of a loved one) far exceeds what anyone with a soul and/or brain would consider a fair negative consequence.

To me, the original post is looking for selacious tabloid-style reporting of the story, not news.

as a relatively new parent of just around 1 year...the thought of this story makes me sick

(06-01-2010 01:57 PM)DogTracks Wrote:  Unless you're going to say that certain victims at some level "deserved it" then what they were or weren't doing before the accident is irrelevant. Probing the parenting skills or the adequacy of the parenting is also irrelevant to a story about a legal proceeding.

Regardless of what they did or the quality of the parenting involved- what happened (death in a car wreck, loss of a loved one) far exceeds what anyone with a soul and/or brain would consider a fair negative consequence.

To me, the original post is looking for selacious tabloid-style reporting of the story, not news.

I would like to rebut your post, point by point:

Quote:Unless you're going to say that certain victims at some level "deserved it" then what they were or weren't doing before the accident is irrelevant.

To be blunt but honest, what happened to those teens was the result of a string of bad decisions by themselves and their parents. I do not like to use the word "deserve" but those bad decisions had a possible logical consequence.

Quote: Probing the parenting skills or the adequacy of the parenting is also irrelevant to a story about a legal proceeding.

If this is solely a story about a legal proceeding then why isn’t the illegal activities of all teens involved mentioned (underage drinking and curfew violations). Also, all the teens involved were minors. Their legal guardians (parents) have certain legal responsibilities to protect their children. Should the media not investigate to see if the parents adequately protected their children?

Quote: Regardless of what they did or the quality of the parenting involved- what happened (death in a car wreck, loss of a loved one) far exceeds what anyone with a soul and/or brain would consider a fair negative consequence.

I think that most posters on this board agree with me and have a soul and a brain. My question to you is what do you consider is a fair negative consequence for a string of bad decisions or for lack of a better term, stupidity on the part of the teens and their parents? Is what happened not a possible logical consequence? Do you really believe that the teens and their parents had absolutely no fault in this matter? Why should the media not report all of the facts? Without all of the facts how is a reader supposed to know the truth or make an informed decision on the matter?

(06-02-2010 12:59 AM)Kevin S Wrote:  Without all of the facts how is a reader supposed to know the truth or make an informed decision on the matter?

most news stories, yes the writer should provide all facts involved. but when it involves minors under the age of 18, it is simply not in good taste to provide all the "facts". the readers do not need to know everything because they have no decision to make. the only ones who need the "facts" are the members of the jury when deciding that girls fate.

(06-02-2010 12:59 AM)Kevin S Wrote:  

(06-01-2010 01:57 PM)DogTracks Wrote:  Unless you're going to say that certain victims at some level "deserved it" then what they were or weren't doing before the accident is irrelevant. Probing the parenting skills or the adequacy of the parenting is also irrelevant to a story about a legal proceeding.

Regardless of what they did or the quality of the parenting involved- what happened (death in a car wreck, loss of a loved one) far exceeds what anyone with a soul and/or brain would consider a fair negative consequence.

To me, the original post is looking for selacious tabloid-style reporting of the story, not news.

I would like to rebut your post, point by point:

Quote:Unless you're going to say that certain victims at some level "deserved it" then what they were or weren't doing before the accident is irrelevant.

To be blunt but honest, what happened to those teens was the result of a string of bad decisions by themselves and their parents. I do not like to use the word "deserve" but those bad decisions had a possible logical consequence.

Quote: Probing the parenting skills or the adequacy of the parenting is also irrelevant to a story about a legal proceeding.

If this is solely a story about a legal proceeding then why isn’t the illegal activities of all teens involved mentioned (underage drinking and curfew violations). Also, all the teens involved were minors. Their legal guardians (parents) have certain legal responsibilities to protect their children. Should the media not investigate to see if the parents adequately protected their children?

Quote: Regardless of what they did or the quality of the parenting involved- what happened (death in a car wreck, loss of a loved one) far exceeds what anyone with a soul and/or brain would consider a fair negative consequence.

I think that most posters on this board agree with me and have a soul and a brain. My question to you is what do you consider is a fair negative consequence for a string of bad decisions or for lack of a better term, stupidity on the part of the teens and their parents? Is what happened not a possible logical consequence? Do you really believe that the teens and their parents had absolutely no fault in this matter? Why should the media not report all of the facts? Without all of the facts how is a reader supposed to know the truth or make an informed decision on the matter?

So, what are you saying? That criminal charges should not have been filled because the victims are widely believed to have been drinking?

Here's a link to the Illinois Compiled Statues- show me where that matters: Illinois Compiled Statues

What purpose is there to pursuing those lines in a story other than pure scandal-mongering? None.

It seems to your mind death is an acceptable logical outcome for underage drinking- should we just go ahead and institute the death penalty for what the law considers a relatively petty offense?

How about jaywalking- a person could get killed by a distracted driver- does the petty offense of jaywalking absolved the tragic nature of that death? Should those who gather to mourn that person spend more time wagging their fingers than grieving?

Do I think the kids did something wrong: yes. The parents could have been better involved in the kids lives and probably made mistakes. None of us can say whether they're bad parents because we don't know the total circumstances of their relationships with their kids. For all we know they could have, outside of this issue, been well within the range of what most of us consider decent parenting or not. But again- that isn't relevant to a story about an upcoming trial, and it isn't a relevant issue at trial.

Let me bottom line this for you: Death is not an outcome proportionate to the relatively minor bad that happened.

What do I consider fair? If caught: An underage drinking charge for the kids- some time in a diversion program, maybe some family therapy where appropriate. If only caught by the parents: that is something to work out within the family. But you get the point- something in line current punishments, something less than death.

If people really care about underage drinking and DUI issues here's the SADD "Contract for Life": "Contract for Life"

Doing that pledge and living up to it is a moment of good parenting.

(06-02-2010 08:43 AM)DogTracks Wrote:  

(06-02-2010 12:59 AM)Kevin S Wrote:  

(06-01-2010 01:57 PM)DogTracks Wrote:  Unless you're going to say that certain victims at some level "deserved it" then what they were or weren't doing before the accident is irrelevant. Probing the parenting skills or the adequacy of the parenting is also irrelevant to a story about a legal proceeding.

Regardless of what they did or the quality of the parenting involved- what happened (death in a car wreck, loss of a loved one) far exceeds what anyone with a soul and/or brain would consider a fair negative consequence.

To me, the original post is looking for selacious tabloid-style reporting of the story, not news.

I would like to rebut your post, point by point:

Quote:Unless you're going to say that certain victims at some level "deserved it" then what they were or weren't doing before the accident is irrelevant.

To be blunt but honest, what happened to those teens was the result of a string of bad decisions by themselves and their parents. I do not like to use the word "deserve" but those bad decisions had a possible logical consequence.

Quote: Probing the parenting skills or the adequacy of the parenting is also irrelevant to a story about a legal proceeding.

If this is solely a story about a legal proceeding then why isn’t the illegal activities of all teens involved mentioned (underage drinking and curfew violations). Also, all the teens involved were minors. Their legal guardians (parents) have certain legal responsibilities to protect their children. Should the media not investigate to see if the parents adequately protected their children?

Quote: Regardless of what they did or the quality of the parenting involved- what happened (death in a car wreck, loss of a loved one) far exceeds what anyone with a soul and/or brain would consider a fair negative consequence.

I think that most posters on this board agree with me and have a soul and a brain. My question to you is what do you consider is a fair negative consequence for a string of bad decisions or for lack of a better term, stupidity on the part of the teens and their parents? Is what happened not a possible logical consequence? Do you really believe that the teens and their parents had absolutely no fault in this matter? Why should the media not report all of the facts? Without all of the facts how is a reader supposed to know the truth or make an informed decision on the matter?

So, what are you saying? That criminal charges should not have been filled because the victims are widely believed to have been drinking?

Here's a link to the Illinois Compiled Statues- show me where that matters: Illinois Compiled Statues

What purpose is there to pursuing those lines in a story other than pure scandal-mongering? None.

It seems to your mind death is an acceptable logical outcome for underage drinking- should we just go ahead and institute the death penalty for what the law considers a relatively petty offense?

How about jaywalking- a person could get killed by a distracted driver- does the petty offense of jaywalking absolved the tragic nature of that death? Should those who gather to mourn that person spend more time wagging their fingers than grieving?

Do I think the kids did something wrong: yes. The parents could have been better involved in the kids lives and probably made mistakes. None of us can say whether they're bad parents because we don't know the total circumstances of their relationships with their kids. For all we know they could have, outside of this issue, been well within the range of what most of us consider decent parenting or not. But again- that isn't relevant to a story about an upcoming trial, and it isn't a relevant issue at trial.

Let me bottom line this for you: Death is not an outcome proportionate to the relatively minor bad that happened.

What do I consider fair? If caught: An underage drinking charge for the kids- some time in a diversion program, maybe some family therapy where appropriate. If only caught by the parents: that is something to work out within the family. But you get the point- something in line current punishments, something less than death.

If people really care about underage drinking and DUI issues here's the SADD "Contract for Life": "Contract for Life"

Doing that pledge and living up to it is a moment of good parenting.

First and foremost do you not think that Ms. Vasquez’s attorney does not want all involved legally prosecuted? I am sure the survivors will be testifying at her trial. Do you not think that their credibility will not be impeached if they were arrested and convicted and proven to be drunk?

Your next comment about jaywalking is absurd. If you jaywalk you run a greater risk of being hit by a car. The death may still be tragic but the jaywalking would be a contributing factor. Should the media not report that you were killed when jaywalking? The police report will certainly mention it.

Yes death is a possible logical outcome of underage drinking! The parents and teens made some very bad decisions that had tragic consequences. Teens do not always have good judgment that is where parental supervision comes in (14 year olds should not be out drinking at 2:30 in the morning). When teens drink what good judgment they have may be further reduced. Last but not least, is it a good idea to get in a car with someone that you have been drinking with at a party for hours and know is probably drunk? If you think that I am wrong then you must believe that those decisions would not have possible negative consequences.

Also as you have seen from my previous posts the Ledger Sentinel, the local paper reported all of the facts. In stories they even questioned the parents and other teens involved roles in the tragic situation. Here is there link just search for the crash stories.

http://www.ledgersentinel.com/

Do you believe that they were out of line for reporting the story the way they did? I do not think so. I believe that they were fair and balanced. The Chicago Tribune was certainly not.

One other thing. Some of the parents after the crash wanted to establish a memorial fund for the victims. If you ask for donations from family and friends that is one thing but when you ask for donations from the community at large, the community has the right to know what happened. All of the details! That is only fair and proper.

(06-02-2010 10:51 AM)Kevin S Wrote:  First and foremost do you not think that Ms. Vasquez’s attorney does not want all involved legally prosecuted? I am sure the survivors will be testifying at her trial. Do you not think that their credibility will not be impeached if they were arrested and convicted and proven to be drunk?

The prosecution of others for underage drinking isn't all that helpful for the defendant. If the others testify and they drank, it could ding their credibility but it by no means would necessarily nullify their testimony. That entire trial boils down to one question: was the defendant driving that vehicle. Anything that doesn't address the question is irrelevant, with the exception of the BAC of the defendant which goes to the drunk driving charge.

I'll try my first question a new way: Do you believe that the victims' drinking absolves the defendant?

Quote:Your next comment about jaywalking is absurd. If you jaywalk you run a greater risk of being hit by a car. The death may still be tragic but the jaywalking would be a contributing factor. Should the media not report that you were killed when jaywalking? The police report will certainly mention it.

The jaywalking thing is deliberately absurd. I believe blaming someone who uses bad judgment on a small scale but dies as an immediate result of another person's actions is absurd.

Quote:Yes death is a possible logical outcome of underage drinking! The parents and teens made some very bad decisions that had tragic consequences. Teens do not always have good judgment that is where parental supervision comes in (14 year olds should not be out drinking at 2:30 in the morning). When teens drink what good judgment they have may be further reduced. Last but not least, is it a good idea to get in a car with someone that you have been drinking with at a party for hours and know is probably drunk? If you think that I am wrong then you must believe that those decisions would not have possible negative consequences.

You are missing my point on this, so here it is, broken down so you can highlight where you disagree.

1) Yes, it is possible for underage drinking to result in death. Possible is not the same as probable though.
2) Appropriate or "fair" negative consequences are proportionate to what was done.
3) Dying is way out of proportion with the mistakes the victims made.
4) That total lack of proporation, combined with the inherent awfulness of someone dying of something other than being old, makes the victims' deaths terrible.

At no point have I denied that underage drinking is a bad decision.

At no point have I denied that getting in the car with a driver who has been drinking is a bad decision.

I posted a link to the SADD pledge (which we followed in my family growing up). If we can't agree on the principles in the SADD pledge, we can't agree on anything in this issue.

Quote:Also as you have seen from my previous posts the Ledger Sentinel, the local paper reported all of the facts. In stories they even questioned the parents and other teens involved roles in the tragic situation. Here is there link just search for the crash stories.

http://www.ledgersentinel.com/

Do you believe that they were out of line for reporting the story the way they did? I do not think so. I believe that they were fair and balanced. The Chicago Tribune was certainly not.

Here's the difference I see between the coverage in the two sources: the Tribune story was focused on the upcoming trial. The central question of the trial being about whether the defendant was the one driving.

Quote:One other thing. Some of the parents after the crash wanted to establish a memorial fund for the victims. If you ask for donations from family and friends that is one thing but when you ask for donations from the community at large, the community has the right to know what happened. All of the details! That is only fair and proper.

It seems to me that they think the community is a compassionate one, and they probably heard from or about people in the community who wanted the chance to contribute some modest memorial.

You blame the victims for their deaths. You have all but said that the kids deserved to die- because it was within the universe of possible outcomes.

You seem to have taken the position of moral scold, seemingly preferring that victims' families should be puritanically shamed rather than embraced in their grief.

I see that viewpoint as not far removed from Westboro Baptist thinking, and I'm trying to give you room to back off that ledge.

(06-02-2010 02:01 PM)DogTracks Wrote:  

(06-02-2010 10:51 AM)Kevin S Wrote:  First and foremost do you not think that Ms. Vasquez’s attorney does not want all involved legally prosecuted? I am sure the survivors will be testifying at her trial. Do you not think that their credibility will not be impeached if they were arrested and convicted and proven to be drunk?

The prosecution of others for underage drinking isn't all that helpful for the defendant. If the others testify and they drank, it could ding their credibility but it by no means would necessarily nullify their testimony. That entire trial boils down to one question: was the defendant driving that vehicle. Anything that doesn't address the question is irrelevant, with the exception of the BAC of the defendant which goes to the drunk driving charge.

I'll try my first question a new way: Do you believe that the victims' drinking absolves the defendant?

Quote:Your next comment about jaywalking is absurd. If you jaywalk you run a greater risk of being hit by a car. The death may still be tragic but the jaywalking would be a contributing factor. Should the media not report that you were killed when jaywalking? The police report will certainly mention it.

The jaywalking thing is deliberately absurd. I believe blaming someone who uses bad judgment on a small scale but dies as an immediate result of another person's actions is absurd.

Quote:Yes death is a possible logical outcome of underage drinking! The parents and teens made some very bad decisions that had tragic consequences. Teens do not always have good judgment that is where parental supervision comes in (14 year olds should not be out drinking at 2:30 in the morning). When teens drink what good judgment they have may be further reduced. Last but not least, is it a good idea to get in a car with someone that you have been drinking with at a party for hours and know is probably drunk? If you think that I am wrong then you must believe that those decisions would not have possible negative consequences.

You are missing my point on this, so here it is, broken down so you can highlight where you disagree.

1) Yes, it is possible for underage drinking to result in death. Possible is not the same as probable though.
2) Appropriate or "fair" negative consequences are proportionate to what was done.
3) Dying is way out of proportion with the mistakes the victims made.
4) That total lack of proporation, combined with the inherent awfulness of someone dying of something other than being old, makes the victims' deaths terrible.

At no point have I denied that underage drinking is a bad decision.

At no point have I denied that getting in the car with a driver who has been drinking is a bad decision.

I posted a link to the SADD pledge (which we followed in my family growing up). If we can't agree on the principles in the SADD pledge, we can't agree on anything in this issue.

Quote:Also as you have seen from my previous posts the Ledger Sentinel, the local paper reported all of the facts. In stories they even questioned the parents and other teens involved roles in the tragic situation. Here is there link just search for the crash stories.

http://www.ledgersentinel.com/

Do you believe that they were out of line for reporting the story the way they did? I do not think so. I believe that they were fair and balanced. The Chicago Tribune was certainly not.

Here's the difference I see between the coverage in the two sources: the Tribune story was focused on the upcoming trial. The central question of the trial being about whether the defendant was the one driving.

Quote:One other thing. Some of the parents after the crash wanted to establish a memorial fund for the victims. If you ask for donations from family and friends that is one thing but when you ask for donations from the community at large, the community has the right to know what happened. All of the details! That is only fair and proper.

It seems to me that they think the community is a compassionate one, and they probably heard from or about people in the community who wanted the chance to contribute some modest memorial.

You blame the victims for their deaths. You have all but said that the kids deserved to die- because it was within the universe of possible outcomes.

You seem to have taken the position of moral scold, seemingly preferring that victims' families should be puritanically shamed rather than embraced in their grief.

I see that viewpoint as not far removed from Westboro Baptist thinking, and I'm trying to give you room to back off that ledge.

Was Steve Irwin's death tragic or the result of the life that he lived. That is the essence of my point. The other essence of my point is that the media should report the facts. Let people make their own judgments.

DogTracks, you better contact the Sun Times about their irresponsible journalism:

Alcohol, speed suspected in wreck that leaves 4 hospitalized

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/23459...10.article

Fun with the media:
http://i.imgur.com/bWLVX.png