This goes through armor… through the victim… through the wall… through a tree outside.
It shoots through schools. Hehehehehehehe.
I always do the whole “legit!” “Le-why?” “I’ll tell you le-why, le-cause…”
But nobody has seen it so I do all the parts. :(
Best thing Joe Piscopo ever did post SNL. (Yeah, that’s setting the bar pretty low…)
Fox
CBS
Huffington
The tone of one of these is pretty different from the other two. I’ll let you guess which one. Hint, you don’t have to guess.
I dunno, that piece by fox seems perfectly reasonable to me. What am I missing?
How about this part? Look, the poor business owner apologized and yet DQ still closed it. Tragedy! Fox almost turns this into something that happened to the horribly racist asshole that started the whole thing.
“But by Friday, Dairy Queen announced that it was closing the location and was terminating Crichton’s franchise rights. A planned Saturday protest at Crichton’s Dairy Qyeen involving local activists and Black Lives Matter demonstrators then reportedly turned into a celebration.”
I seem to read the Fox article as basically objective, and I disdain Fox.
"James “Jim” Crichton allegedly used the n-word following a disputre with 21-year-old Deianeira Ford and her children on Jan.4 over a food order that was allegedly incomplete. "
I don’t see how this article is objective in any way. How many instances of “allegedly” can be found in the CBS and HP articles, for example, compared to this ONE sentence in the Fox article?
Isn’t “allegedly” the technically correct way to word the accusation?
Edit: All three articles seem to be pulling a lot of their bits from the WaPo article.
The guy “proudly boasted” of what he did. How is that “alleged”? Alleged by definition means there is no proof of what happened.
It’s not alleged; everyone agrees he said it, including himself. From the CBS story: “A Zion police report says the franchise owner, Jim Crichton, told a responding officer he called Deianeira Ford, 21, of Tinley Park, Illinois, and her children a racial slur. He also said he was “fed up with black people” and would go to jail over the issue.”
Yes it is. “Allegedly” is CYA armor for the press and is how allegations should referenced until the accusations become proven.
It’s wording that press outlets usually use to prevent lawsuits.
Edit: Having read all 3 articles, yes, the allegedly is appropriate in this case. The allegedly in the Fox story is only applied for the “using the n-word”. The rest of the story reports the details without “allegedly” because they are all confirmed. The only unconfirmed item is the exact word used, which is couched in “allegedly” since it hasn’t been verified.
The police officer wrote in his report that the DQ franchise owner “proudly boasted” about what he did. He didn’t proudly boast publicly anywhere AFAIK. Since the “proudly boasted” bit comes from the police report, it’s correct to say “allegedly” in this instance.
Twice. In the same sentence. Combine that with the details they conveniently left out and somehow this is still an objective article.
Seems objective to me, if perhaps less detailed than some of the others. I don’t see the Fox article as portraying the owner in anything but the extremely negative light he deserves. It didn’t at all suggest that it didn’t happen.
I’m no fan of Fox, but I disagree with you on this one. Allegedly is appropriate in that one sentence, which is also the only sentence where it is used. The rest of the story uses quotes and police reports to state verified facts.
The Fox story also published a quote that isn’t in the CBS article that, for me, if more damning towards the owner than anything in the CBS story.
“He called me and my children n—–; he said I can go back to where I came from,” Ford recounted to The Washington Post.
“He took out his flip phone and he said he would take a picture and put it on Facebook because he wants to show the world what kind of n—— he has to deal with,” Ford continued. “Then he shut the window and walked away.”
There are plenty of places where Fox sucks. I just don’t see it in this story.
I don’t see how it isn’t. The facts were reported clearly and accurately. Fox didn’t at any point offer an opinion on the matter. The links lead back to the WaPo article.
I’m not sure what you guys are seeing here.
I get what you guys are saying, really. Comparing the articles though, one stands out for trimming the details to the bare minimum. One seems to almost object to the closure of the franchise with the subtle use of the word “but”. That’s my issue with it. I can’t imagine Fox doing the same if it were a black-on-white event. I’m guessing I could find some examples but hard to check on the phone.