Comments on: Clueless Hardin County girl makes her feelings known

By: Nick Oldham

Nick Oldham — Wed, 05 Sep 2012 01:19:21 +0000

Since I have not seen the original story I can not comment on whether all the back and forth abuse was reported. This story and this story aside, I just assume the same courtesy that you give your minions would be extended to true victims. After all, your minions report to you because they want justice, but at the same time they wish to be shielded. Same with the victims, they report to police for justice and to build a paper trail for potential situations in the future but this style of reporting disallows direct shielding from the public. I guess I don’t view something being in public record equating to always being relevant for a story. This is the last I will say on this topic. Everything else in your reply I agree with (except my view on journalism as a whole because that was definitely an overgeneralization

By: Jack Howser

Jack Howser — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 22:38:29 +0000

What she did was RE-call attention to herself by making an unnecessary post on her Facebook page. The whole thing would have been a moot point if she’d kept her damn mouth shut, but no…she had to spout off on her page in an immature, repulsive little whine over something that we SEE EVERY DAY. We get files with victim’s names EVERY COUNTY, because the accused has the right to know who his/her accuser is. That’s the law. Our protocol is to publish the file AS IT APPEARS. That has never varied from March 12, 2003 until now. You are welcome to order every back issue we have and take a look just to prove it to yourself.

This is something other media doesn’t do, and that’s why this country’s journalism, and consequently, government, is in decay. There are “certain people” who are padded from such exposure, be they a victim…or a perp. You do it for one, then you do it for the next, and the next, and then you have whole segments of society thinking THEY can be the exception…and pretty soon, it’s anathema to write about “certain people” or “certain topics.” Hell, there are whole groups of people who still believe we, the media, can’t sit in on and report on juvenile cases. Why? Because for ever how many years, lazy journalists have let this aspect of the court system slide, and the left-leaning courts have helped whiny parents coddle their kids when they’re felons, and intimidate journalists who want to sit in on and report the cases…so the journalists gave up.

That said, while this whiny girl, who most assuredly has an entitlement complex because of her grandma, was the victim in THIS case, we have law enforcement officials who have assured us that she herself has taken swings at and landed many punches on Josh herself. And they’ve also mentioned that he’s not the only one she’s done this to, just as she’s not the only one Josh has allegedly done it to…she’s just the latest one he’s been charged with. There are many sides to every story. You all are trying to promote one. We’re just telling what the court files and officials say. The case means nothing to us except as news we report because that’s the area we cover. It started to mean something MORE to us when she decided to open her damn mouth, figuratively speaking, and disparage us for doing our jobs. That opens up a whole can of worms. She expresses her opinion, we express ours back. We’re allowed to do that. And while we appreciate you voicing your opinion in the way you have, we have to respectfully tell you that you’re wrong about your views on journalism. This is not only “the way it is” here, this is THE WAY IT’S SUPPOSED TO BE. And because lazy corporate news media allowed it to become something else, we’re now catching shit for making it right. And THAT, I guarantee, does NOT make us happy.

By: sick of corruption 97

sick of corruption 97 — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 21:22:41 +0000

Jack, sure this isn’t the last You will hear from Her! Drama Queen!

By: Nick Oldham

Nick Oldham — Tue, 04 Sep 2012 19:53:12 +0000

I understand the fact that you feel it is necessary to provide coverage on a whole variety of situations. Granted, I don’t recall reading her story and she didn’t exactly approach having her information removed appropriately. Still, this post bothered me a little bit, and raised a couple of questions for me. What safeguards, if any, do you implement in your protocol on whether to post a person’s name? Especially, if this girl was truely the victim. If this story was as meaningless or insignificant to you like you said, why was it “pertinent” to put her name? Regardless of it being in public record, wouldn’t you want the focus on the Scum and what he did. Especially with this situation being an outcome of circumstance beyond her control. Why disclose her name, why not keep her name in your files , and use it later if it is discovered she wasn’t the victim. I do see your side on getting the story out, but there are already issues with women not reporting domestic abuse because they are ashamed. I would hate the situation to arise when a young girl is afraid to report her boyfriend for hurting her simply because she wants to prevent the potential of being publicly humiliated online (which your furthered, by insinuating it was her fault she was the victim. Since you have a few years on her you should know people may not always appear a loser to everyone, until a situation like this occurs) I wouldn’t want that for my daughter, and I assume you for yours. Once again, I don’t know the full story or paths of publication it took. In the end, this isn’t me telling you to justify yourself, you can simply say “it is what it is,” but I would sure like to know what “it is.”