You've all probably seen something about this (http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,4942764%255E401,00.html) case, in Britain. Two kids killed, two people going down for it. Since it's apparently depressing for me to keep posting nasty news stories, I'll just use this one as a point for a question. Two kids were killed. Two adults are in trouble for it. Now, neither suspect has yet been convicted of anything relating to this case, yet the news people have plastered their names all over the place. People all around that area are after blood, anting to tear them apart. Now, whetehr they actually did it or not, their lives are over. They might not necessarily be killed, but even if they go free, their lives are screwed. Setting aside for a moment the fact that the guy is already a convicted rapist from years ago, should reporters be able to name suspects before they have been convicted of a crime?
08-21-02, 04:38 PM
Missing the main question here, but...
Originally posted by Adam
They might not necessarily be killed...
Why would they be killed? You mean, legally?
I'd like to post a question to Americans here (or anyone else who might know) because I apparently missed something recently. A while back a man was beaten up by L.A. cops. This caused huge problems. A little while later two girls were kidnapped and raped and the cops shot the guy dead when they found him. For the next two days all the newspapers and CNN said was "The police shot him." There was no news about what happened, whether there was a gun fight or why they shot him. Anyone know?
Ther is not enough drama, in the truth, for the media. They need to glamorize & dramatize the news. All for the ratings.
08-22-02, 06:01 PM
Tyler, here is the story...
goofy headed punk
11-29-02, 05:05 PM
Reporters can do what they want (in the U.S. anyway). Regardless, I see nothing wrong with mentioning a suspect so long as the fact that he is only a suspect is stressed highly.