 |
|
|
|
|
|
8/31/2007
This is what we do, and this is what you do So, we recently added a new feature to the Web site (in addition to this blog). Now, readers can add their comments on stories.
It's just another way for us to be more interactive and to further increase the open discussion of ideas.
Of course, we have some basic rules. Rules you'd find on many media Web sites. We don't allow foul language, name-calling, racist comments, unsubstantiated attacks, personal attacks.
In short, keep it civil.
We don't correct grammatical or spelling errors. We either post the comment just how the reader wrote it or we don't do it at all.
We have this simple guidelines because we are responsible for the comments on the site ... even if they aren't ours.
Anyway, the story that has seen the most action in terms of reader comments is the $10 million McDonald's cheese lawsuit.
Many of the people who has submitted comments wonder why Jeromy Jackson, the plaintiff in the case, didn't open up the burger to see if the cheese he's allergic to was on the sandwich.
Some of the comments are funny, some are biting, some focus solely on the legal aspects of the case.
Then, one came in that took a different approach.
It's from a reader named Will. The e-mail address he left apparently isn't real, but his Aug. 31 comments don't focus on wondering why Jackson didn't look for the cheese after he had the burgers.
His headline was "You should all be ashamed."
"Prejudging a case based on reading only a complaint or a rehashing of the complaint is pure foolishness," Will wrote. "Complaints don't contain all the facts, not by a longshot.
"Even if Jackson didn't look at the burger, McDonalds has responsibility here. Surely enough to let a jury decide - AFTER all the facts are out."
As I was activating comments for the site, I was taken with his thoughts.
First, we reported the facts of the story. We essentially reported what Jackson, his mother and friend (the other plaintiffs) filed in the complaint through attorney Timothy Houston.
We simply told the story that they put on print in their lawsuit. In our news coverage of the filing, we do what we always do -- straight-forward reporting of the facts.
That is what we do. That is what makes our legal journal unique around here.
But Will wasn't talking about our coverage -- unless he read our editorial about the suit.
No, he was talking about all of the previous reader comments. The ones that suggested Jackson should've double-checked himself to see if the cheese was on his burgers, especially after having asked so many times during the ordering process at McDonald's.
"If I were that allergic, the first thing I would do is CHECK FOR CHEESE!" reader Cheryl wrote on Aug. 11. "People have to take SOME responsibility for their own safety. This lawsuit is ridiculous!"
Of course, everyone is entitled to an opinion. That is part of what makes our country -- and our legal process -- great.
Then, I thought. This is what you do. The reader, that is.
We present the facts of the case. You read them, form an opinion and decide for yourself.
Outrageous lawsuit? Ridiculous? Completely reasonable? Frivolous?
That's for you to decide.
We just report the facts.
| | |
|
Comments for 'This is what we do, and this is what you do'
|
|
There are no comments for this blog
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SUBSCRIBE To get our free email newsletter and make changes to your subscription: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Attention bloggers:
Add Record Headlines to your site!
fast + free- click here
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Need to know more about us or have questions? Try the links below:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
