As Emma says in the intro what reporters including herself decide to include, leave out, or highlight can influence how a story is received and the reaction to it. I know my last post had raised some concern. I will be addressing all of that after I get tomorrow’s cartoon / meme / news post scheduled and the Sunday morning semi news shows watched. If you listen to this please note that neither one of the reporters is excusing what Platner might have done; they are discussing the omitting of details that could color the story in different ways and should reporters be concerned with that shading effect. The fact is in my opinion there are a lot of unknowns and unanswered question. This is not a court of law that a person’s life is being examined under; no one is under oath in any of this. It is being tried in the media of public perception. So in that case I want to be sure of the facts before I condemn a person and ruin their life.
I also believe strongly in redemption. We all have made mistakes and we all were young. I am not perfect. I have always had the idea of being a better Scottie today than I was yesterday. I had a temper in my 20s and have struggled most of my life to not just control it but to remove it and the triggers that ignite it. Should 20 year old me ready to battle and fight at the least provocation be the down fall of 40, 50, 60 year old Scottie now? Is there no redemption, compassion, or empathy for the experiences that lead to mistakes and wrong choices? But that is not what this post is about, it is about what facts should be included or omitted in reporting. Hugs
Scottie's Playtime 