Weekly News Comment #1

Filed Under (Uncategorized) by Emily on 31-08-2011

First of all, I have to wonder why the headline says “female defendant” instead of just “defendant”. Is it because the author thinks readers will assume that the juror is a creepy stalker-ish kind of guy? If the juror had been female and the defendant had been male, would the author have even mentioned the gender of the defendant? Maybe it is just a coincidence, but the headline makes me curious about the author’s ideas on gender perceptions and expectations.

Another issue I have with the story is that the author tells the readers of the name of the defendant. What if people who read the story go on Facebook to find her? I guess I am wondering how appropriate it is to say the name of a Facebook user on a national news site.

I think it is sad that the jurors would be using their smartphones to pass the time. Call me old fashioned or a word nerd, but why couldn’t they bring books to read instead? I think we are too “logged on” as a society.

I think this story is newsworthy.  It raises a lot of questions about the appropriate use of technology, which is very pertinent to mass comm. I think it would be interesting to discuss in class.

9 Comments Already, Leave Yours Too

Numerology Compatibility on 31 August, 2011 at 8:43 pm #

First of all ,you have picked a very unique theme . I think i might design something similar for a future project that i want to build . On top of that ,i in truth enjoy most of your content pieces and your different point of view. Thank you.

ross fuglsang on 6 September, 2011 at 3:07 am #

I wasn’t able to comment on the descriptive assignment. You might check the settings to see how it is different.

Also, I don’t see the ice cream description.

Here, you’re correct on the identification of gender. It’s not something that is always done, so there must be a reason. Your comments on technology are also interesting. If jurors are supposed to be sequestered, than they should not have access to their cellphones. But is that even possible any more?

Kyle on 7 September, 2011 at 7:21 pm #

Hi, i think you are right about the article. There are places that “our technology” just should not be allowed.


Bert on 10 September, 2011 at 2:25 pm #

I really can’t imagine how to stop these things. I see two different scenarios here:

– The juror wanted to communicate with the defendant: in this case, by using a different name the communication would be traceless.

– The juror just didn’t see the problem in adding a nice person to her list of friends: I can’t see the danger in this unless first message arrives.

Having a friend on Facebook doesn’t mean you physically know him. I have Barack Obama and Oprah Winfrey in my lists.

Anyway, smart phones can influence their decisions in more than one way, so I agree that something has to be done.

Heart Fatigue Info

Rob @ Fast Twitch Muscle Exercises on 1 October, 2011 at 1:29 pm #

Regarding using smartphones… yip thats society these days

Stephane Smith on 21 October, 2011 at 7:38 pm #

There was a lady durer here in the UK who wrecked a case because she added one of the defendents to her facebook and started communicating with her. Madness!

Alline Gristede on 27 January, 2012 at 10:53 am #

I have been surfing online greater than 3 hours today, but I never found any fascinating article like yours. It’s lovely worth sufficient for me. In my view, if all webmasters and bloggers made good content material as you probably did, the internet shall be a lot more useful than ever before.

Simon on 3 February, 2012 at 2:42 pm #

What about kindles?

Bmi uitrekenen on 21 February, 2012 at 2:09 am #

I think you are right about what you said in this article