First,
watch the video, here. Then, consider these
points:
Ø
Diane Sawyer (yes, Diane Sawyer is actually covering this newsworthy story) asks: “How far would
you go to get a foul ball?”
o
Fact check: The ball came
right to the couple. They barely reached
for it. What, exactly, are you seeing,
Diane?
Ø
The announcer calling the ballgame
asks: “Oh, my god! They can’t give [the
ball] to the kid? That’s awful.”
o
Reality check: The ball is
theirs; they don’t know the kid, and it's obvious they don’t even know the kid is there.
Ø
When the man takes a picture of
the woman holding the ball, the announcer says: “Wow, they’re actually, like,
rubbing it in the kid’s face.”
o
Newsflash: The world doesn’t
revolve around the crying kid. The
couple is celebrating catching a ball – something every fan thinks about when
going to a ballgame. Let them enjoy
their incredibly overpriced tickets.
Ø
The narrator of the story then
says: “They aren’t the first adults to act childish with a baseball headed
their way.”
o
Question: What exactly did they do that was so
childish? The crying child is not their
problem, and good for them if they were able to enjoy the game despite the
crying.
Even
the headline at my beloved TaxProfBlog, where I learned about this national
news story, reads: “What were these people thinking?”
Assuming this event was even newsworthy, a better caption would have been: “You can’t always get what you want.”
Thanks for raising the pro-child bias as a legal issue, Michael. I commonly see it in "false memory" cases as well.
ReplyDelete