Reviewing Two

.
Hey, lets review two prior posts from this blog. The first, from just a few weeks ago, and the second from over two years ago (June 2009).


End of the Line: This post was attached to a poll. It was an interesting story (to me) that I thought would generatate some thought. It did not. But that's OK. Actually the reason for this blog is mostly a way for me to express myself, mostly to myself it seems. So, I'll just go on about it by myself.

It was a brief story about an ABC News report where a mother and her child were asked to exit a public transit bus because the kid was screaming and was a distraction to the driver. Remember?

Well, there are just a few things I'd like to point out. First, only ABC (at least that's the only place I saw it reported) aired the incident. ABC made the incident into a race issue and implied that the pair were only asked to get off the bus because they were Hispanic. ABC placed a video clip in their coverage that did not include sound, making it impossible to hear what exactly was said or how loud the baby was. ABC also included a printed transcript of the conversations between the driver and her dispatch. The bus company cited confidentiality issues of the driver when giving a statement to ABC, but they released the communications transcript to ABC. Where was the confidentiality of the driver then?

ABC did not mention the fact that other bus passengers were also complaining about the kid, but did interview two passengers that sided with the mother. ABC did not report that the mother left the bus voluntarily and was picked up 12 minutes later by the next bus and after the kid calmed down. ABC implied the mother was kicked off in a desolate, dark, and unsafe area.
ABC advertises "Fast, Fair, and Accurate" reporting of the news. This was anything but.

Please look at the source of the news before forming your opinions. Look deeply, and ask youself about the motives of the report regardless of where it comes from.

Who killed Michael Jackson?: Now here is a post that did generate some excitement, and I think the most comments to any of my posts. I must have hit a soft spot.

Michael is back in the news. This time with the trial of his doctor who is being accused of negligence in the death.

Why are we spending our resources for this trial? Regardless of how that final dose of drugs were administered, the bottom dollar is that Michael was in control of his own life and killed himself. He used hard drugs for many years before his heart stopped and created the means himself to get and use anything he wanted. It's not that I support that idiot doctor of Michael, but I don't think he should be imprisoned. Do we really file murder charges against the drug dealer every time someone fixes too hot of a load for himself? This case is nothing different.
.