More from J. Todd Foster

He does. If he'd stop writing editorials, he'd be perfect.

 

Jim, if you've read my posts, I haven't insulted J. Todd for anything. What I have done is question his judgment in writing the follow-up column.

Truth be told, I'm torn on whether he should have written about the kid in the first place. If it had been an adult, absolutely write about it. A teenager, you have to be a little more careful. You can't hold a 16-year-old to the same standard of behavior as an adult. Still, you guys wrote about it and were supposedly prepared to deal with the consequences. So be it. You're professional journalists, and you're trained to deal with those consequences.

But in the follow-up column, not only did he do something that could be viewed as unethical (quoting a phone message without verifying if it was on the record) but he also wrote about some very sensitive information (the teen being potentially suicidal) without any verification from anyone other than two phone messages.

He didn't do a fundamental tenet of journalism, which is get the other person's side of the story. He didn't call the teen, or his parents, and ask them to comment for the column, or to ask them how the story has affected their lives.

Did you guys even stop to think, while writing about the rumor, that maybe the kid doesn't want his mental health status known to the outside world? Instead he rumor-mongered that the kid was suicidal. I would hope for everyone's sake that nothing horrible comes to fruitition.

All he had to do in the column was write a version of "Yeah, we know we may have upset a lot of people, but we stand by our story." Simple, and to the point (and used quite strongly by the Washington Post during the Watergate reporting).

 

The kid was paid $20 to do it. So you're against your kids working for a living?

 

They're teenagers. Expect the worst, hope for the best.

Teens do stupid things sometimes. The kid did a stupid thing.

 

My God, taking a piss in public. What has the world come to? Juvenille assanine prank, fine him and move on. Is it really this big a deal?

 

Yes.

He easily could have been labeled a sex offender for exposing himself before young children and, according to the Supreme Court, could be incarcerated for the rest of his life.

 

Hyperbole much?

 

Actually, that would fit the legal definition most places.

If some skeevy guy came out waving his wang in front of schoolkids, and claimed he was just taking a piss, you don't think they'd lock him up a try to label him a sex offender?

 

I think that indecent exposure in Virginia is a misdemeanor -- as it is most places -- and does not qualify for the sex offender label -- and in most states it would not.

Even if you were in the minority of places where indecent exposure could land you on the sex offender registry, it is not an offense that by itself would lead to post-incarceration civil commitment in any jurisdiction.

So, no. I know he wouldn't be locked up as a sex offender in Virginia. I doubt he would many other places.

 

I would not like to test the theory that I could go to a school campus and wave my wang around in front of school children and at worst get charged with a misdemeanor, thanks all the same.

 

You're presumably an adult and not a 15-year-old who attends that school, so yes, you would be at risk for more than a misdemeanor. This child is not.