Post by BL 73 on May 8, 2006 15:22:25 GMT -5
Hi JW. First, congratulations on your upcoming graduation. I salute you and I am confidant that you will execute your responsibilities in a manner (using an ageless phrase) that brings great credit upon yourself, your unit, the Corps and the Army (or whatever branch you are commissioned into since some elect other branches for a variety of reasons). No jesting or sarcasm here – I mean this seriously. Second, I didn’t take your comments as disrespect – just a different opinion. Knowing I can only speak for myself, I will still dare say that others feel the same as I do.
That said and even though I also have a love/hate opinion of the media, I am still compelled to respond to your latest post because I feel the newspaper article was fair and accurate. I will use your comments as the basis for my response. Additionally, I echo Lisa’s statement that you should not leave the Forum. Your opinion is no more or less valuable than mine or others that have commented on this subject.
You wrote: “……………… (1.) those who seem to be taking this story literally, when it is not an accurate account of what happened (I was there) and (2.) non-West Pointers who are seeing this forum (b/c I know for a fact that there are civilians/non-west pointers who read this) and have labeled cadets as a bunch of crazy, out of control, immature, rioters based on a badly reported story because they have nothing more to go on, especially when even our own are assuming the worst about us …………………………”
JW – read the article closely. Even though you were there, were you in a position to see everything that happened? The article reports the facts of what happened – no more and no less; all taken from an official document – the OC’s log, i.e., contrary to your aforementioned statement, the reporters did have something to go on. Eliminating the OC’s inclusions of personal opinion (it was a travesty, etc.); granted, the OC could’ve been lying or exaggerating as to the physical aspects of the incident but I doubt that. The article includes quotes from a cadet and a LTC PR spokesperson that presents a more tempered and differing opinion, i.e., both sides of the argument. The only time the reporters include what could appear to be their own personal opinion is when they state that they thought that the majority of cadets were not apathetic (implying underpinnings more serious then just youthful exuberance) as stated by a Plebe and granted, the statement of one person not in official capacity should be taken as such - just one opinion. However, based on the presented facts, there is a basis to form such an opinion and I share the same concern and I am a Grad - well beyond Plebe status – smiles.
Were firecrackers and burning objects thrown out of windows – yes. Was a jar thrown that struck another cadet – yes. Was an extremely high number of cadets involved – yes. Were objects thrown at cadets cleaning up the mess – yes. Were the behaviors of the cadets serious enough to prompt a “command decision” to hold back law enforcement and emergency personnel until the “riot” stopped – yes. Were obscenities directed towards and behaviors threatening to duly appointed authority in the execution of their duties – yes. As such, is it fair to say that the situation (no matter how short a duration) was out-of-control – yes. It should be noted that the reporters did show journalistic restraint in not reporting that a plastic bottle with a firecracker inside exploded. The bottle could’ve shattered thus making the resulting plastic shards what we call shrapnel that could’ve cause serious injury. Or, I could say it was a very low grade IED – ring a bell? This is a far cry from throwing subs sandwiches during a food fight at an Army / Navy game or insignificant blowing off of steam. Also, was the incident a Riot – yes. Check out the legal and dictionary definitions for RIOT (legal definition: www.lectlaw.com/def2/q053.htm and dictionary definition: www.dictionary.net/riot). Granted no one was hurt or property damaged (also stated in the article) but by legal and dictionary definition, what happened that night was in fact a RIOT conducted by a MOB (definition: A large disorderly crowd or throng). So please tell me what part of the article was inaccurate, out of context or even unfair?
JW – you imply that the newspaper article was unfair and lacked objectivity yet offer no evidence to support your argument nor do you point out what aspects of the article were objectionable to you, i.e., you presented an argument based on emotion – not fact. You fail to discuss the OC’s log (again, an Academy-generated official document) that supports the points made in the article or comment on the fellow cadet’s quote. Note that the reporters made no personal characterization of cadets as being immature, crazy or out-of-control. The OC’s log and quote by the Plebe did that. And while you are still a cadet, I know it’s not “prudent” for you to openly/publicly criticize the OC’s log (even though your comments imply a criticism) yet by omitting any comments about his/her log aren’t you the one not being fair and objective or more accurately – one-sided – the very thing you accuse the media of doing?
In summary, the article reported the facts as existing in an official document, included opposing opinions from a cadet and LTC PR spokesperson and left the resulting conclusions up to the reader. I call that appropriate journalism. However, if I only had the opportunity to interview one cadet, I would've chosen a Firstie not a Plebe - more credibility in discussing the Corps.
And lastly, give the non-grad readership a little credit. In my experience, all the non-grads I have been associated with hold Academy cadets / grads in high esteem. They understand that in all institutions, there will be "misteps / hiccups" - Duke Lacrosse situation, the sexual harrassment scandels at both Academy and civilian colleges, etc.. These unfortunate incidents don't take away from the well-earned and positive reputations that the Academies hold among mainstream America and the "riot" (smiles) at West Point won't even make a dent; however, that's just my opinion.
That said and even though I also have a love/hate opinion of the media, I am still compelled to respond to your latest post because I feel the newspaper article was fair and accurate. I will use your comments as the basis for my response. Additionally, I echo Lisa’s statement that you should not leave the Forum. Your opinion is no more or less valuable than mine or others that have commented on this subject.
You wrote: “……………… (1.) those who seem to be taking this story literally, when it is not an accurate account of what happened (I was there) and (2.) non-West Pointers who are seeing this forum (b/c I know for a fact that there are civilians/non-west pointers who read this) and have labeled cadets as a bunch of crazy, out of control, immature, rioters based on a badly reported story because they have nothing more to go on, especially when even our own are assuming the worst about us …………………………”
JW – read the article closely. Even though you were there, were you in a position to see everything that happened? The article reports the facts of what happened – no more and no less; all taken from an official document – the OC’s log, i.e., contrary to your aforementioned statement, the reporters did have something to go on. Eliminating the OC’s inclusions of personal opinion (it was a travesty, etc.); granted, the OC could’ve been lying or exaggerating as to the physical aspects of the incident but I doubt that. The article includes quotes from a cadet and a LTC PR spokesperson that presents a more tempered and differing opinion, i.e., both sides of the argument. The only time the reporters include what could appear to be their own personal opinion is when they state that they thought that the majority of cadets were not apathetic (implying underpinnings more serious then just youthful exuberance) as stated by a Plebe and granted, the statement of one person not in official capacity should be taken as such - just one opinion. However, based on the presented facts, there is a basis to form such an opinion and I share the same concern and I am a Grad - well beyond Plebe status – smiles.
Were firecrackers and burning objects thrown out of windows – yes. Was a jar thrown that struck another cadet – yes. Was an extremely high number of cadets involved – yes. Were objects thrown at cadets cleaning up the mess – yes. Were the behaviors of the cadets serious enough to prompt a “command decision” to hold back law enforcement and emergency personnel until the “riot” stopped – yes. Were obscenities directed towards and behaviors threatening to duly appointed authority in the execution of their duties – yes. As such, is it fair to say that the situation (no matter how short a duration) was out-of-control – yes. It should be noted that the reporters did show journalistic restraint in not reporting that a plastic bottle with a firecracker inside exploded. The bottle could’ve shattered thus making the resulting plastic shards what we call shrapnel that could’ve cause serious injury. Or, I could say it was a very low grade IED – ring a bell? This is a far cry from throwing subs sandwiches during a food fight at an Army / Navy game or insignificant blowing off of steam. Also, was the incident a Riot – yes. Check out the legal and dictionary definitions for RIOT (legal definition: www.lectlaw.com/def2/q053.htm and dictionary definition: www.dictionary.net/riot). Granted no one was hurt or property damaged (also stated in the article) but by legal and dictionary definition, what happened that night was in fact a RIOT conducted by a MOB (definition: A large disorderly crowd or throng). So please tell me what part of the article was inaccurate, out of context or even unfair?
JW – you imply that the newspaper article was unfair and lacked objectivity yet offer no evidence to support your argument nor do you point out what aspects of the article were objectionable to you, i.e., you presented an argument based on emotion – not fact. You fail to discuss the OC’s log (again, an Academy-generated official document) that supports the points made in the article or comment on the fellow cadet’s quote. Note that the reporters made no personal characterization of cadets as being immature, crazy or out-of-control. The OC’s log and quote by the Plebe did that. And while you are still a cadet, I know it’s not “prudent” for you to openly/publicly criticize the OC’s log (even though your comments imply a criticism) yet by omitting any comments about his/her log aren’t you the one not being fair and objective or more accurately – one-sided – the very thing you accuse the media of doing?
In summary, the article reported the facts as existing in an official document, included opposing opinions from a cadet and LTC PR spokesperson and left the resulting conclusions up to the reader. I call that appropriate journalism. However, if I only had the opportunity to interview one cadet, I would've chosen a Firstie not a Plebe - more credibility in discussing the Corps.
And lastly, give the non-grad readership a little credit. In my experience, all the non-grads I have been associated with hold Academy cadets / grads in high esteem. They understand that in all institutions, there will be "misteps / hiccups" - Duke Lacrosse situation, the sexual harrassment scandels at both Academy and civilian colleges, etc.. These unfortunate incidents don't take away from the well-earned and positive reputations that the Academies hold among mainstream America and the "riot" (smiles) at West Point won't even make a dent; however, that's just my opinion.
