Hopefully your first reaction wasn't to post distasteful comments about this tragedy:
Prayers for this child and his family are in order - not inhuman comments and fingerpointing before the dust even settles.
Sounding like a hard nosed management supporter wasn't the intention in that last post, but very little faith exists for fire and police command structure in Sandusky. This may be an effect from how the police command caused the Nuesse debacle. How can you trust anyone who handles problems like that? Police are supposed to be experts in conflict resolution, so what does it say when police commanders behave so unprofessionally (specifically, Phil Frost) and ramp up situations instead of defuse them? So don't go expecting city residents to take their word for it on budget issues without examining how police are operating down there. You don't give kids free reign with your wallet, do you?
.....I just got myself started on Phil Frost....
In case you never saw this excerpt, it's from a October 31st story in the SR about the Nuesse civil service hearing:
Yah. Like totally. Like totally super crazy, I mean, you know what I mean?
Aside from the fact that Frost purports to be a grown man/ law enforcement professional yet he's acting like a whiny bitch at a hair salon, he says some pretty inane things:
1. All evidence points to the fact that the entire command structure (the 12 individuals who can't stomach the idea of a chain of command) were out to get Nuesse. Look no further than the letter they all signed to oust her.
Notice the operative word: "unfounded." Nuesse's fears were founded and completely reasonable. Look at the great lengths the totally, you know, like totally super professional police commanders did to get rid of her.
I'm over it.
What, pray tell...
....is up with that headline?
Couldn't the SR make a conscious effort to be a little more positive? Read the first paragraph in the above article and then tell me why the SR couldn't portray the story in a more positive light?
Article presents same information - just a different perspective. (And then the SR can't get knocked for being negative all the time.)
Here's another one:
Read the whole article and you'll see that there's no mention of "sexual hazing" -- at least in the traditional sense of sexual hazing. I always understood sexual hazing to mean an embarassing or demeaning sexual act that the pledge - or newby - or boot - or whatever had to perform for initiation purposes. I'm reading through the article and I'm expecting a lurid story of high school basketball players being forced to have sex with whoever - or whatever - but I end up getting conned into reading a story about Huron High B-ball players horseplaying and giving each other mansac tappers.
I feel violated.
Was the cheap headline trick worth it?
So whoever writes the headlines down there at the SR, just take Don Lee's advice before writing another one:
Make it accurate and if given the choice, make it positive. And for crying out loud we don't need to know every time a b-ball player gives a teammate a mansac tapper. Are we a nation of mice or men?