Thursday, April 02, 2009



A politically correct version of the truth from Canada

Compare the two headlines below:

Victoria musician gets 10 years in HIV sex-assault

ZIMBABWEAN REFUGEE SENTENCED TO 10 YEARS FOR SEXUAL ASSAULT AFTER KNOWINGLY SPREADING HIV

Both headlines refer to the same facts and the same piece of scum. The first is from a major newspaper and the second is from the site of a talkshow host. Which do you think is most informative and most likely to be read? Hiding the truth seems to be a major objective of newspapers these days. May they all go bankrupt! Thank goodness that some of them are already bankrupt in a monetary sense. The vast majority of them have been bankrupt as reliable conveyors of information for a long time.

6 comments:

The Times Observer said...

Well, as a professional journalist, I don't see anything wrong with either headline.

Although, you have to remember that the first headline has to be short because there is only so much room you can have on a newspaper page. You want your headlines short and big (for the font size).

Also, he is a member of a popular band, so local readers may know who he is. It's just more relevant.

My problem is with the story itself, because I did a quick read of it. Either he sexual assaulted the women (which usually means rape) or he just had sex with the women without telling them that he had HIV (which might mean sexual assault). It’s very true that I missed the explanation of how he was charged with aggravated sexual assault, but I didn’t see it.

Personally, even though they don't have it, they should execute him. Giving someone HIV is basically a death sentence anyway.

Anonymous said...

Actually, sexual assault and rape are two different crimes. In todays PC'ized world, a sexual assault can be something as simple as puting your arm around a woman who doesn't want it there. Also, if any of these women should die from their encounter with him, his charge is then elevated to homicide.

As for the media coverage. Gee, is anyone still surprised by the media's manipulation of facts? (present company ^ excluded) Is anyone still dumb enough to beleive what they read in a newspaper, or hear on a cable news show? If so, then the media still has some believers!

The Times Observer said...

Very true, Anonymous. I forgot that if you put your arm around a woman, you become a rapist.

And that's why I never made the first move on a date. I'm very grateful that I'm married now. I don't think I could handle some of these girls now who see things that aren't there.

Anonymous said...

Seeing things that arent' there isn't the problem. Its when they remember that they saw something three days ago, and won't tell you about it until tomorrow that raises the danger level.

Anonymous said...

All it takes is a mere allegation from a woman, and your life is over. Just think of all the women who have become rich by simply accusing men of sexual harassment, an offense that doesn't even require her being touched! Justice has never been so blind.

Anonymous said...

Anyone who knowingly spreads HIV is committing an assault. He doesn't have to be a rapist.

Nowadays HIV usually doesn't lead to death as treatments have evolved. Hence assault instead of manslaughter.