Chen wrote:I love the way the legitimate concerns of the church are brought up in a tiny part of the end of the original article and ridiculous out of context statements are what make up the body of it. That reporter should be shot.
More like a single sentence from the church was brought up, in itself highly out of context, and the rest of the article was little more than biased speculation. It's amazing how actually reading the paragraph that sentence was actually in brought to light the true concern, that of going bankrupt due to frivolous (and almost impossible to prove or disprove) lawsuits.
And to think, for a time I wanted to be a journalist!
That's the church's spin. I'll buy that the concern is going bankrupt, but I imagine they're worried about legitimate lawsuits as well as frivolous ones (and with good reason!) Those responsible for the bill say that they have addressed the church's concerns about frivolous lawsuits by "setting the bar high", and yet the church still opposes the bill.
Color me not surprised.
* * *
Also, what are you talking about with "a single sentence from the church was brought up, in itself highly out of context...It's amazing how actually reading the paragraph that sentence was actually in brought to light the true concern"?
Here's the paragraph in the letter containing that sentence:
It is important to understand that the claims which could be made under House Bill 5473 might be 50, 60, 70 years old or older. Most often, these claims would be driven by a small number of trial lawyers hoping to profit from these cases. They would be difficult to defend because key individuals are deceased, memories have faded, and documents and other evidence have been lost.
Here's the paragraph in the article which contains the quote:
The bishops' letter raised concerns that the bill would allow claims that are 70 years or older, in which "key individuals are deceased, memories have been faded, and documents and other evidence have been lost." The letter said that the majority of cases would be driven by "trial lawyers hoping to profit from these cases."
It seems to me that they pretty well paraphrased the entire paragraph, so I don't see how reading that paragraph in the letter somehow makes clear something that wasn't clear from the article.
Look, the church is opposed to a law aimed at allowing victims of childhood sexual abuse to have their day in court, because it's worried about going bankrupt if such claims are allowed. This is a fact. So they asked their parishioners to oppose the law, also a fact, while couching the request it in very careful language with just the right spin so they don't appear to be defending pedophiles. Then the article reports the facts, without using all the careful language that the church used. As a result, the church looks really bad. But you know what? It's not the job of the journalist to carefully use the right spin to avoid making their subject look bad. I think you're going way too far to accuse the journalist of publishing "biased speculation", when the article is entirely factually correct. It's the church's own actions, when seen without the church's spin, that are so damning.
I'm looking forward to the day when the SNES emulator on my computer works by emulating the elementary particles in an actual, physical box with Nintendo stamped on the side.
"With math, all things are possible." —Rebecca Watson