Sunday, February 25, 2007

MMFA and semantics

MMFA is great at semantics. They recently ran an article here which said that Bill O'Reilly agreed with his guest's (Wendy Murphy) false claim that the Boston Globe did not cover a child rape case. The Boston Globe did run an article here, with the headline "Increased penalty sought for child endangerment" The main topic of the article is the introduction of a law by a Mass. state Sentaor who introduced a bill to up the max. jail time for child endangerment to 10 years (from 2.5). It does mention the case and the fact that Doyle (the one who didn't stop the rape) got only 1 year in jail (note also that this 1 year was for intimidating a witness; for child endangerment he only got 5 years probation).

So did the Boston Globe cover the child rape case??? It's all a case of semantics. They did run an article which was not focused on the case (i.e. had the case as the main subject of it), but did mention it. So is that considering "covering" something?? It all depends on what your definition of cover is, I suppose. This is merely an opinion and shows how misleading, and lame MMFA has become. Normally, if someone told me that there was an article covering a criminal case, I would expect a writeup of the case to the be the main focus and subject of the article. However, in this case it wasn't. The case was merely mentioned as background info for the main topic of the article. Notice also that in MMFA response, it says "In fact, the Globe did report on Doyle's case " They didn't even use the word COVER in their description of the Boston Globe article. So someone said "BG did not cover topic a" but MMFA lists a newspaper article as evidence of this. However, they don't say "BG did cover topic A"; they say "BG did report topic A". It's all semantics and it just shows you how pathetic and lame MMFA has become.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home