Ashandarei 0 Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 yeah, we're supposed to check our homerism at the door yet he claims that cecil is a good writer? If by good writer you mean bammer sunshine pumper. He writes about Alabama Football and Basketball... both of which I like. So why wouldn't I like to read about something that I care about? You know, I have to wonder about how interesting Alabama football and basketball are when the writers are needing to borrow money from boosters. haha, that's true! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GalensGhost 0 Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 yeah, we're supposed to check our homerism at the door yet he claims that cecil is a good writer? If by good writer you mean bammer sunshine pumper. He writes about Alabama Football and Basketball... both of which I like. So why wouldn't I like to read about something that I care about? okay, so he writes on a subject in which you have interest. That has nothing to do with his relative skill as a writer. I read the second grade newsletter every week when my daughter brings it home. But no one will ever accuse Miss Wilbarn of being a good writer. As a journalist Cecil has an obligation to be objective. He is not. He owes it to his readers to pursue the truth and express honest opinions without regard for whatever agenda shady boosters or UA insiders want him to push. He does not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tigrinum Major Posted December 15, 2007 Share Posted December 15, 2007 I just got off the phone with an pal of mine. He wondered out loud what kind of medical bills do you not want made public? Could it have been an STD? An embarassing emergncy room trip from some adult activity gone wrong? Too many variations to ponder. I do believe it's a breach of professional ethics for a journalist to accept money or have financial dealings with a subject he is investigating without disclosing those financial links. However, I don't think that is grounds for speculation and innuendo regarding his health and private life. We all have a right to privacy when it comes to our medical history, and exercising that right should not lead to innuendo regarding STD's or "adult" activities. I hope no one ever suggests I'm guilty of illicit conduct just because I choose to protect my medical privacy.Yes, it is important that Cecil's financial dealings with Keller be public. His specific medical problem is not the story however and does not need to be public. IMHO, speculation of this sort borders on libel/slander. Never let a silly thing like the threat of libel or slander get in the way of a juicy rumor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.