Thread: Dwayne Haskins died this morning

Originally Posted by King87

I'll simply say that when I was taking journalism classes that was the type of sentence we were taught to not write.

It wasn't malicious, but writing about his struggles as a player early into an entry on his death is clearly flawed writing; not avoiding what could easily be interpreted as a potshot in that context was silly.

I think we can just look at it as what it is: something that would piss off just about anyone if *they're* loved one was covered in that way. I agree that some folks will always look to outrage, but if something is worth getting upset over, does the inclusion of people who are always upset mitigate the legitimacy of earnest parties? That doesn't make sense to me.

This was a good post, and thought-provoking.

I tried to imagine Haskins was some white dude QB and the same statement about struggling to find his purchase in the NFL and decided it was acceptable media context. It left the door open for complaint, but it was just a typical 'hard edge' fact that one can easily exculpate or even appreciate from a journalist.

The context is especially useful if there are factual bits (e.g., Haskins was partying until late in the night, struggling to master an addiction of some form related to his perceived lack of NFL success) that subtly inform us of a morality play at hand.

The conclusion I come to is that someone like Shefter has no obligation to sugar coat his message, but his reputation will hinge on the accuracy of the tone as more details emerge. If this was a pointless tragedy, it will tarnish his reputation. At this point, knowing what we know, it's hard to really fault him much. Running across an interstate is a bad idea, it requires explanation.

Having said all that, it is tragic no matter what, and my heart goes out to the extent it does anyone I've never met who dies too young and leaves behind sadness of those who loved him or her--parents, family, friends.

I shall reflect upon this. Edit - after having breakfast I thought about it this way: Hawg, what you're saying in regards to shedding some light on the situation does make sense. But when I turned my mental screws (which, admittedly aren't what they used to be, unfortunately) I don't know if it actually did? Is there much of a connection between struggling to make it as a QB and what happened? Potentially, do to immaturity, right? But how much of that connection was available in the tweet? Substantively, could I have made that connection, and if not, does that make it appear to be more of a dig/bad look?

Especially given the outcome we have now of him being out there for conditioning/training or whatever and making a mistake that a lot of people have made (crossing unsafely), but IDK. It struck me as bad form when I read it, it struck me as bad journalism when I read it, and then I got sad because twitter, today, = journalism.

tl;dr - I'm not sure the sentence at issue was actually that useful for anything in a logistical or journalistic way, and my morals say 'bad boy, Schefty!' Also, I'm dumber now than I used to be.

Context matters.

Originally Posted by King87

I shall reflect upon this. Edit - after having breakfast I thought about it this way: Hawg, what you're saying in regards to shedding some light on the situation does make sense. But when I turned my mental screws (which, admittedly aren't what they used to be, unfortunately) I don't know if it actually did? Is there much of a connection between struggling to make it as a QB and what happened? Potentially, do to immaturity, right? But how much of that connection was available in the tweet? Substantively, could I have made that connection, and if not, does that make it appear to be more of a dig/bad look?

Especially given the outcome we have now of him being out there for conditioning/training or whatever and making a mistake that a lot of people have made (crossing unsafely), but IDK. It struck me as bad form when I read it, it struck me as bad journalism when I read it, and then I got sad because twitter, today, = journalism.

tl;dr - I'm not sure the sentence at issue was actually that useful for anything in a logistical or journalistic way, and my morals say 'bad boy, Schefty!' Also, I'm dumber now than I used to be.

Agree. It’s not really that big of a deal, but there was no reason for Schefter to add any “negative” commentary to that tweet. The day of someone’s death is not the right time to do that.

Originally Posted by Mozzafiato

Agree. It’s not really that big of a deal, but there was no reason for Schefter to add any “negative” commentary to that tweet. The day of someone’s death is not the right time to do that.

I demand Schefter to live a life of seclusion now!

And eat only the heads of fish!

And root for the Buckeyes.

Originally Posted by Mozzafiato

Agree. It’s not really that big of a deal, but there was no reason for Schefter to add any “negative” commentary to that tweet. The day of someone’s death is not the right time to do that.

I guess I will agree to disagree. Schefter stated and summarized facts by stating that Haskins had struggled and hadn't lived up to his first round draft status. Its no different than including the fact that John Wilkes Booth assassinated President Abraham Lincoln, General Custer led his men into a trap and slaughter, Benedict Arnold was a traitor, Ryan Leaf was a bust as second overall pick in NFL draft (if Leaf had died), JaMarcus Russell ate his way out of the NFL and was a bust as a first round pick (if he had died), etc. People need to stop being so f*ing sensitive about the reporting or stating of facts. Just because someone died tragically, doesn't mean reports have to leave out, sugar coat or gloss over facts or the truth. Facts or the truth don't and shouldn't have to be left out of a story about a person on that person's date of death and only be mentioned the next day or days later, unless the facts or truth weren't discovered until after the person's death.

Sometimes the facts or truth stings or hurts, but the facts are the facts and the truth is the truth and shouldn't need to be softened or omitted on the date of a person's death. For example, should an article initially omit the fact that a person died alone or was killed along with someone else in a car accident because the person was either driving illegally under the influence or drugs and/or alcohol or illegally fleeing from law enforcement so as to not add any "negative" commentary? Of course not and to even suggest or propose the idea of doing so is ludicrous and absurd.

I wonder what was going through Dwayne’s head as he was crossing that road. I would think we could all gauge speed and distance of a vehicle and not even try to cross if a vehicle like a dump truck was coming.

Originally Posted by Nomad

I wonder what was going through Dwayne’s head as he was crossing that road. I would think we could all gauge speed and distance of a vehicle and not even try to cross if a vehicle like a dump truck was coming.

I agree, but know that it can be difficult to accurately gauge speed and distance when the light is not good (e.g. dawn and dusk). I'm not sure what time in the morning the accident occurred. Regardless, it is a terrible tragedy!!

Originally Posted by MNPatsFan

I agree, but know that it can be difficult to accurately gauge speed and distance when the light is not good (e.g. dawn and dusk). I'm not sure what time in the morning the accident occurred. Regardless, it is a terrible tragedy!!

Yes, I agree. I was just wondering.

Originally Posted by MNPatsFan

I guess I will agree to disagree. Schefter stated and summarized facts by stating that Haskins had struggled and hadn't lived up to his first round draft status. Its no different than including the fact that John Wilkes Booth assassinated President Abraham Lincoln, General Custer led his men into a trap and slaughter, Benedict Arnold was a traitor, Ryan Leaf was a bust as second overall pick in NFL draft (if Leaf had died), JaMarcus Russell ate his way out of the NFL and was a bust as a first round pick (if he had died), etc. People need to stop being so f*ing sensitive about the reporting or stating of facts. Just because someone died tragically, doesn't mean reports have to leave out, sugar coat or gloss over facts or the truth. Facts or the truth don't and shouldn't have to be left out of a story about a person on that person's date of death and only be mentioned the next day or days later, unless the facts or truth weren't discovered until after the person's death.

Sometimes the facts or truth stings or hurts, but the facts are the facts and the truth is the truth and shouldn't need to be softened or omitted on the date of a person's death. For example, should an article initially omit the fact that a person died alone or was killed along with someone else in a car accident because the person was either driving illegally under the influence or drugs and/or alcohol or illegally fleeing from law enforcement so as to not add any "negative" commentary? Of course not and to even suggest or propose the idea of doing so is ludicrous and absurd.

Eh, the problem is that the fact he stated literally gave zero insight into the accident. He struggled to play well at football doesn't equate to anything relevant.

He apologized for a reason; that reason wasn't because of some culture war.

I stated before - the only reason this is even a story is because he was an NFL player, and a 1st round pick.

Otherwise, It'd be a non story.

Originally Posted by BroncoJoe

I stated before - the only reason this is even a story is because he was an NFL player, and a 1st round pick.

Otherwise, It'd be a non story.

Agreed; another point as to why his struggle meant absolutely nothing to the story.

Originally Posted by BroncoJoe

I stated before - the only reason this is even a story is because he was an NFL player, and a 1st round pick.

Otherwise, It'd be a non story.

Exactly. Hence, discussions about his failure to live up to expectations is reasonable. If not, guys death would have only been a few lives In a local paper.

Originally Posted by King87

Agreed; another point as to why his struggle meant absolutely nothing to the story.

It wouldn't have been a national story, but for his failed NFL career.

Originally Posted by Tned

It wouldn't have been a national story, but for his failed NFL career.

I think we all know that if a guy is a backup QB his career didn't pan out. That's why the context/but he's a NFL player arguments don't really work. They added nothing to the story then-some tenuous connect at best between struggling and getting hit by a truck- and after we learned more we know after the fact they added nothing.

Schefter apologized for a reason; it was bad form journalism and while not his intent, a bad look.