Brad Lester ?‍♂️

[auburnphan 6,050]

1 minute ago, lionheartkc said:

To answer your question, what the media did wrong was to report on the arrest without doing their due diligence, knowing full well that an accusation like this can tarnish someones reputation for life, even if they are proven innocent. The media has completely forgotten about journalistic integrity and is soley focused on getting clicks, so they publish the most salacious thing they can get their hands on, with no concern to it's overall validity. 

That is not there responsibility to do the police department job.  They reported what the police department released.  THE POLICE DEPARTMENT RELEASED NEWS. THE NEWS MEDIA REPORTED THE POLICE NEWS AS NEWS.  POLICE DROP CHARGES DROPPED, MEDIAS FAULT.  THAT IS DUMB

[auburnphan 6,050]

8 minutes ago, lionheartkc said:

To answer your question, what the media did wrong was to report on the arrest without doing their due diligence, knowing full well that an accusation like this can tarnish someones reputation for life, even if they are proven innocent. The media has completely forgotten about journalistic integrity and is soley focused on getting clicks, so they publish the most salacious thing they can get their hands on, with no concern to it's overall validity. 

While it is off subject we really need to look at what is media and what is journalism.  Take CNN and Fox News.  On an average week night how many Hosts and their guests are actually journalists.  I can think of 3 hosts that would qualify.  Maybe there in is the problem?

[lionheartkc 6,150]

7 minutes ago, auburnphan said:

That is not there responsibility to do the police department job.  They reported what the police department released.  THE POLICE DEPARTMENT RELEASED NEWS. THE NEWS MEDIA REPORTED THE POLICE NEWS AS NEWS.  POLICE DROP CHARGES DROPPED, MEDIAS FAULT.  THAT IS DUMB

Again, it's called journalistic integrity. They reported on the story before it was complete, and now there are people out there who read part 1 of the story and didn't see part 2, so they firmly believe Lester is a reprehensible human being, because they only know half of the story. The media pulls this crap all of the time, now.  They report on investigations that get high ratings and when people are exonerated they bury that news deep in their paper/website.

Look at it this way, phan. Say someone who had a grudge against you called the cops and turned you in for child porn. The cops show up, you are arrested. The case is now being investigated by the DA. The next day, the media runs a story about your arrest (you will note in the original story that they writer got the info by fishing through the police blotter, looking for something salacious). You now have to explain to everyone you know that it's a lie. You have to hope that you don't get fired. If they use a picture (which they did for Lester), once you make bail, you find that you can't go anywhere because you are treated like a pariah. Then the DA finishes the investigation and finds out that you were falsely accused. This fixes things with your friends and you boss, but you just have to hope everyone else you encounter read the second story or you're going to spend years repairing your reputation.

Back in the day, newspapers would never run a story about an arrest before conviction because they didn't want to unnecessarily drag someone's name through the mud, or even risk being guilty of liable. Now, they flat out don't care.

8 minutes ago, auburnphan said:

While it is off subject we really need to look at what is media and what is journalism.  Take CNN and Fox News.  On an average week night how many Hosts and their guests are actually journalists.  I can think of 3 hosts that would qualify.  Maybe there in is the problem?

 That is an extremely valid point and another huge problem in our society because a large percentage of the population consider these talking heads to be journalists and hang on every word they say as truth, not opinion. For the record, random websites posing as news sources, where they writers know nothing about real journalism, are an even worse problem.

[auburnphan 6,050]

3 minutes ago, lionheartkc said:

Again, it's called journalistic integrity. They reported on the story before it was complete, and now there are people out there who read part 1 of the story and didn't see part 2, so they firmly believe Lester is a reprehensible human being, because they only know half of the story. The media pulls this crap all of the time, now.  They report on investigations that get high ratings and when people are exonerated they bury that news deep in their paper/website.

Look at it this way, phan. Say someone who had a grudge against you called the cops and turned you in for child porn. The cops show up, you are arrested. The case is now being investigated by the DA. The next day, the media runs a story about your arrest (you will note in the original story that they writer got the info by fishing through the police blotter, looking for something salacious). You now have to explain to everyone you know that it's a lie. You have to hope that you don't get fired. If they use a picture (which they did for Lester), once you make bail, you find that you can't go anywhere because you are treated like a pariah. Then the DA finishes the investigation and finds out that you were falsely accused. This fixes things with your friends and you boss, but you just have to hope everyone else you encounter read the second story or you're going to spend years repairing your reputation.

Back in the day, newspapers would never run a story about an arrest before conviction because they didn't want to unnecessarily drag someone's name through the mud, or even risk being guilty of liable. Now, they flat out don't care.

 That is an extremely valid point and another huge problem in our society because a large percentage of the population consider these talking heads to be journalists and hang on every word they say as truth, not opinion. For the record, random websites posing as news sources, where they writers know nothing about real journalism, are an even worse problem.

I get all that, but it has always been that way.  Not sure about the newspapers that you grew up with but where I grew up all the small papers and what not would have the police beat in it.  Listing the calls and arrests being made that previous week according to the police department.  Social Media, keyboard warriors and opportunists may be more at fault for the spreading of these reports at a much larger, quicker rate.  

[lionheartkc 6,150]

5 minutes ago, auburnphan said:

Social Media, keyboard warriors and opportunists may be more at fault for the spreading of these reports at a much larger, quicker rate.  

Totally agree. That's the danger of our society... once a story gets out there, true or not, there is no controlling how fast it will grow or how big it will get. Hiding behind a keyboard has eliminated any sense of obligation to the truth.

[auburnphan 6,050]

2 minutes ago, lionheartkc said:

Totally agree. That's the danger of our society... once a story gets out there, true or not, there is no controlling how fast it will grow or how big it will get. Hiding behind a keyboard has eliminated any sense of obligation to the truth.

enjoyed the discussion, thank you.

[alexava 6,972]

There was not really much of a story or a change in the story. He was charged for supposedly videoing a kid in a restroom or locker room then charges dropped. Any more information must come from Brad himself. The media did all it could do. And I’m not seeing anything done wrong. 

[boisnumber1 2,817]

Back in the day, journalists would post extractions or corrections regularly when what they had printed/reported what was incorrect. Never happens at all now. Its pathetic really. True journalism is absolutely dead. They regularly report absolute falsehoods and never even acknowledge it when the truth comes out. Happens daily countless times.

[WeaglWeaglWDE 599]

14 hours ago, boisnumber1 said:

Back in the day, journalists would post extractions or corrections regularly when what they had printed/reported what was incorrect. Never happens at all now. Its pathetic really. True journalism is absolutely dead. They regularly report absolute falsehoods and never even acknowledge it when the truth comes out. Happens daily countless times.

It does happen. The bad part is that they post nasty things in the HEADLINE when it first breaks to get views/ratings knowing that the majority of people will only read the headline and not the full story. People take that and run with it making assumptions of guilt and dragging whoever through the mud. Then, when they post a retraction, it's generally buried somewhere way in the back in fine print that virtually no one will ever see. Because honesty doesn't get ratings, its no longer important enough to put up front. 

[abw0004 10,104]

Charges weren’t dropped FYI.  Lester took a plea deal if it matters.

[NoALtiger 3,849]

Sounds like our man Brad isn’t as innocent as we’d like. You don’t plea bargain with something like this if everything is on the up and up. Something happened that shouldn’t.

[aufan57 922]

Here is a link

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2756199-former-auburn-rb-brad-lester-agrees-to-plea-deal-in-child-pornography-case
 

 

[alexava 6,972]

[Tigerbelle 5,299]

22 hours ago, NoALtiger said:

Sounds like our man Brad isn’t as innocent as we’d like. You don’t plea bargain with something like this if everything is on the up and up. Something happened that shouldn’t.

 This was probably something that wasn't meant to be malicious. 

[lionheartkc 6,150]

On 1/27/2018 at 4:57 PM, NoALtiger said:

Sounds like our man Brad isn’t as innocent as we’d like. You don’t plea bargain with something like this if everything is on the up and up. Something happened that shouldn’t.

On the other hand, a plea isn't usually offered unless there's more to the story that makes the outcome of a trial questionable, especially with this kind of charge.

[DAG 33,955]

If I am innocent, I am not taking a plea deal. Things like that stick . Exception being the West Memphis 3, but that was a huge eff up.

[lionheartkc 6,150]

2 hours ago, DAG said:

If I am innocent, I am not taking a plea deal. Things like that stick . Exception being the West Memphis 3, but that was a huge eff up.

But... if you did something that was illegal, but was not heinous, yet it was being drug through the media as something seriously character destroying, you'd stomp it out in any way possible before letting the inaccuracies fester and become the truth, correct?

Unfortunately, that's the society that we live in. Do something stupid with no nefarious intention, someone sees it and spins it into something bigger than it is, and you can't wait to get your day in court, because by the time that happens, you will have been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion.

 

[chimes 442]

38 minutes ago, lionheartkc said:

But... if you did something that was illegal, but was not heinous, yet it was being drug through the media as something seriously character destroying, you'd stomp it out in any way possible before letting the inaccuracies fester and become the truth, correct?

Unfortunately, that's the society that we live in. Do something stupid with no nefarious intention, someone sees it and spins it into something bigger than it is, and you can't wait to get your day in court, because by the time that happens, you will have been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion.

 

Sounds like you’ve got a lot more information than anyone else here does. Either that, or you’re giving Lester the benefit of the doubt simply because he used to play football for Auburn. If he was just some guy off the street I highly doubt you’d go to such lengths to create such a fanciful narrative to exonerate or justify his actions.

[lionheartkc 6,150]

Just now, chimes said:

Sounds like you’ve got a lot more information than anyone else here does. Either that, or you’re giving Lester the benefit of the doubt simply because he used to play football for Auburn. If he was just some guy off the street I highly doubt you’d go to such lengths to create such a fanciful narrative to exonerate or justify his actions.

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt because they let him walk with a plea. In the current climate, someone who's claim to fame is that he "used to play for Auburn" doesn't walk away from child porn charges.

[chimes 442]

7 minutes ago, lionheartkc said:

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt because they let him walk with a plea. In the current climate, someone who's claim to fame is that he "used to play for Auburn" doesn't walk away from child porn charges.

Guess it depends on what the plea deal was. 

[lionheartkc 6,150]

1 minute ago, chimes said:

Guess it depends on what the plea deal was. 

It went from felonies to misdemeanors. They let him walk. That only happens to famous people, rich people, and people who were facing trumped up charges... he's not rich or famous.

[alexava 6,972]

I his social media announcement he boasted “ no charges, no record “ then we learn he pled down. I don’t know who is mistook here but that is a contradiction. Anyway I will assume he is not a sick bastard but just let some kind of pranks get out of hand. Hope someone can learn a lesson. 

[lionheartkc 6,150]

1 hour ago, alexava said:

I his social media announcement he boasted “ no charges, no record “ then we learn he pled down. I don’t know who is mistook here but that is a contradiction. Anyway I will assume he is not a sick bastard but just let some kind of pranks get out of hand. Hope someone can learn a lesson. 

He probably just meant no felony record. 

[DAG 33,955]

3 hours ago, lionheartkc said:

But... if you did something that was illegal, but was not heinous, yet it was being drug through the media as something seriously character destroying, you'd stomp it out in any way possible before letting the inaccuracies fester and become the truth, correct?

Unfortunately, that's the society that we live in. Do something stupid with no nefarious intention, someone sees it and spins it into something bigger than it is, and you can't wait to get your day in court, because by the time that happens, you will have been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion.

 

No! If I am innocent, I am not taking a plea deal . Period. Definitely not just to stop whatever crap the media is going to spew, because now he has taken a plea and the assumption is he is guilty.

[lionheartkc 6,150]

1 minute ago, DAG said:

No! If I am innocent, I am not taking a plea deal . Period. Definitely not just to stop whatever crap the media is going to spew, because now he has taken a plea and the assumption is he is guilty.

Okay man... it's your life. Reputations are VERY hard to rebuild one the media has had months to run it into the ground, even if you end up being innocent. 

I'm sure he is guilty of some minor infraction or the whole thing would have never happened. To me, it sounds similar to the case of the mom who put a recorder in her kids backpack to get proof that she was being harassed, and got arrested for recording people without their knowledge, but that's pure speculation based solely on the fact that he was arrested for recording a kid and they gave him an easy out.