Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'RayGator's Swamp Gas' started by Gatuar, Mar 16, 2014.
That's Espn for ya. Whatever looks best.
Muschamp comments on Debose...
This is actually journalistic style - it would impose bias to suggest that he tried to make peace, for example. That he was "involved," is truthful, that he was a "peace maker" would bring in subjectivity.
They changed the headline today. I'll take credit for that thank you very much.
"Andre Debose involved in dispute"
Sorry, they changed the link: Cops wrongly name UF's Debose as attacker
Right, but still journalistically correct. They didn't call him a "peace maker," for example. They can quote someone saying it, however.
"Involved" is still correct and the easiest way to describe what has turned into a bit of a confusion situation due to the police statements.
Ya know, I could swear I stated that "involved" was technically correct in my first post in this thread. And, it's still "technically" correct. Involved does, still, offer the casual observer an incorrect assessment of his, involvement. And no, the easiest way to describe his involvement was with their corrected link on the NCCAF home page.
Well I don't think that's necessarily true, either. If all you said about the situation was that Debose was incorrectly identified, it sort of downplays his "involvement" quite a bit. He was there. He got in a fight. He got thrown through a window. To simply leave it at being incorrectly identified as the assailant would be even less accurate.
How was he in a fight when the apology from the police department states he tried breaking up the altercation multiple times before being pushed into the window? He wasn't in a fight; he was attacked. Two different things.
You stated he was in a fight when he wasn't. He was somewhere he shouldn't have been, according to him, but according to police he tried multiple times to break up whatever was taking place and was shoved through a window.
Did I mistake what you said somehow?
Technically, he was "involved" in a fight, as involved is neutral as to how he was involved, so I think OBOB is correct there.
Where I differ from OBOB is that I think "involved" by itself is misleading, because most people will assume it means he was an active combatant rather than someone trying to diffuse the fight, as the police indicated when they corrected the original report and apologized to him.
OBOB stated "he got in a fight". Getting in a fight means he wanted to partake in it as well. That wasn't the case. The word involved is very misleading so I agree with you there.
Oh... I see now, further up in one of the quotes. Yeah... "got in a fight" is definitely not an accurate portrayal based on the revised police report.
But your complaint wasn't with my wording, it was with "involved in a fight" which is 100% true. Whether he "got in" a fight or not is another matter but not the subject of your issue.
Do what? Everything I've said to you was in reference of you saying he was in a fight which he wasn't.
Sigh ... I've been defending the use of "involved in a fight."
So if I happen to be in a bank when it's hit by a few perps, the newspaper account of the events would be correct if I was described as being involved in the robbery? My employer would love that...
I find it amusing to argue journalistic correctness with what pretty much the entire profession has devolved into (and I'm not counting bloggers)