faxmachine
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2019
- Messages
- 5
So last Friday, the same day police launched an investigation "involving Tyreek Hill" on potential battery against a child, the KC Star editorial board ran an op-ed titled:
"If Tyreek Hill broke his son's arm, the Kansas City Chiefs must break with their star."
You can read it here: If Tyreek Hill broke his son's arm, the Kansas City Chiefs must break with their star
There has been debate on Twitter ever since, and remains a point of discussion. Some Star readers are criticizing the newspaper for publishing this If-he-did-it op-ed before charges have been brought against Hill, arguing that the op-ed could have waited until he's actually charged (technically, Hill is not even the focal point of the investigation; him and his fiancee are both listed on police reports).
Others are defending the Star, saying Tyreek Hill has lost the benefit of the doubt due to his past behavior, which includes assault against a pregnant woman. And also, this is a news story, and releasing or keeping Tyreek depending on what the investigation reveals will be part of the larger conversation at some point.
It is worth noting that on the day The Star ran this op-ed, they had a separate news story that stated the 3-year-old's arm broke as a result of an incident. They attributed this to sources and have stood by their reporting even as no other outlet has confirmed. However, the Star did NOT report who broke the kid's arm or when it happened, either because they don't know, or because it isn't solid enough yet to report. We aren't sure, and the Star's writers haven't clarified.
Anyway, would you have run the above-linked op-ed when they did? Would you have waited? Depending on how you answer, I'd be curious to know your thought process.
"If Tyreek Hill broke his son's arm, the Kansas City Chiefs must break with their star."
You can read it here: If Tyreek Hill broke his son's arm, the Kansas City Chiefs must break with their star
There has been debate on Twitter ever since, and remains a point of discussion. Some Star readers are criticizing the newspaper for publishing this If-he-did-it op-ed before charges have been brought against Hill, arguing that the op-ed could have waited until he's actually charged (technically, Hill is not even the focal point of the investigation; him and his fiancee are both listed on police reports).
Others are defending the Star, saying Tyreek Hill has lost the benefit of the doubt due to his past behavior, which includes assault against a pregnant woman. And also, this is a news story, and releasing or keeping Tyreek depending on what the investigation reveals will be part of the larger conversation at some point.
It is worth noting that on the day The Star ran this op-ed, they had a separate news story that stated the 3-year-old's arm broke as a result of an incident. They attributed this to sources and have stood by their reporting even as no other outlet has confirmed. However, the Star did NOT report who broke the kid's arm or when it happened, either because they don't know, or because it isn't solid enough yet to report. We aren't sure, and the Star's writers haven't clarified.
Anyway, would you have run the above-linked op-ed when they did? Would you have waited? Depending on how you answer, I'd be curious to know your thought process.