News media and the people who only read what they write

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

So there is a story getting hot about a judge who tossed 3 kids into juvi for not going to a court-ordered lunch with their father. The story is tailor made clickbait so there are a crapton of news sites that go with that angle (washingtonpost, esquire, etc. etc). The problem is that when you read the facts, you see that the judge was way more lenient than she had every right to be (like 10 hearings, making the kids tour the juvi before this one, taking multiple verbal lashings outside the courtroom, etc). Finally, the kids called her bluff for the 11th time and found out that she wasn't bluffing this time.

Link (http://www.bing.com/news/search?q=Judge+Lisa+Gorcyca&FORM=HDRSC6)

Anyway, what cracks me up is the opinions on the sites depending on how they present the facts. If they only focus on the judge tossing them into juvi the comments are - get her off the bench, send her to juvi, abuse of power. However, when they go through the history of the case, most people are like - kids these days, should have tossed them into it earlier, etc.

TLDR - next time you read a hate piece, do a search to "find the rest of the story"

[olevetonahill]

So there is a story getting hot about a judge who tossed 3 kids into juvi for not going to a court-ordered lunch with their father. The story is tailor made clickbait so there are a crapton of news sites that go with that angle (washingtonpost, esquire, etc. etc). The problem is that when you read the facts, you see that the judge was way more lenient than she had every right to be (like 10 hearings, making the kids tour the juvi before this one, taking multiple verbal lashings outside the courtroom, etc). Finally, the kids called her bluff for the 11th time and found out that she wasn't bluffing this time.

Link (http://www.bing.com/news/search?q=Judge+Lisa+Gorcyca&FORM=HDRSC6)

Anyway, what cracks me up is the opinions on the sites depending on how they present the facts. If they only focus on the judge tossing them into juvi the comments are - get her off the bench, send her to juvi, abuse of power. However, when they go through the history of the case, most people are like - kids these days, should have tossed them into it earlier, etc.

TLDR - next time you read a hate piece, do a search to "find the rest of the story"

Yup
reporters slant the crap in what ever direction they want it to go!

[Tear Down This Wall]

So there is a story getting hot about a judge who tossed 3 kids into juvi for not going to a court-ordered lunch with their father. The story is tailor made clickbait so there are a crapton of news sites that go with that angle (washingtonpost, esquire, etc. etc). The problem is that when you read the facts, you see that the judge was way more lenient than she had every right to be (like 10 hearings, making the kids tour the juvi before this one, taking multiple verbal lashings outside the courtroom, etc). Finally, the kids called her bluff for the 11th time and found out that she wasn't bluffing this time.

Link (http://www.bing.com/news/search?q=Judge+Lisa+Gorcyca&FORM=HDRSC6)

Anyway, what cracks me up is the opinions on the sites depending on how they present the facts. If they only focus on the judge tossing them into juvi the comments are - get her off the bench, send her to juvi, abuse of power. However, when they go through the history of the case, most people are like - kids these days, should have tossed them into it earlier, etc.

TLDR - next time you read a hate piece, do a search to "find the rest of the story"

Here's a pretty good take on the real story:
http://observer.com/2015/07/exclusive-interview-dad-whose-kids-were-locked-up-for-not-having-lunch-with-him/

Too bad the whole story isn't being told. I guess former Rangers manager Ron Washington would say, "That's the way internet go."