Why people don't buy newspapers

[ThomWV]

Read this very short news article and ask yourself this question - could you think of any questions the reporter might have asked and reported on that he or she missed? How about this one - how does a man die in an isolation cell? In fact when a man dies while in police custody how is it ever anyone's fault other than the police?

http://www.bdtonline.com/local/local_story_155154329.html

Know why people don't buy newspapers? Because they do not report in enough depth to make them worth buying.

[asthmaticeog]

1. You want reporters to speculate?

You have a point about declining readership being due in part to weak reporting, but your example is SHIT. The person might have died of whatever disease -- or an overdose of whatever drug -- caused his bizarre behavior. The fact of the death is worth reporting before the cause is discovered. That's why reporters often follow up from initial reports. But leaping to a conclusion about the cause would be massively irresponsible, even if the conclusion leapt to confirmed your bias.

[ThomWV]

2. No, I want them to tell me if there were any marks on the body

Go take a look for themselves, is that too much to ask?

Read it - no reporter ever looked at or asked anything. What you see there is a police, and consequently news, report that says 'nothing happening here, keep on moving'.

A man died, the last line says no one expects any action, no hint was given about what killed the man other than he was being held in Police custody - custody - that means that the police were responsible for the man's safety. Yet no where in that article is there any hint that they may have failed in this most basic of dutyies or that anything is ever going to be done about it or most importantly, that the news paper had any interest in it what so ever.

[asthmaticeog]

3. A reporter doesn't typically have access to a corpse.

Reporters are rarely qualified to perform autopsies. That's why such info is usually culled from a coroner's report. Its telling that your grievance with the article is laden with the word "may." "May" isn't relevant. Until more is known, a reporter must NEVER report anything BUT the facts that are knowable.

Look, cops are often the biggest fucking liars on Earth, I'm with you, but the report probably has no cause of death because one isn't fucking known yet. This has "preliminary" written all over it. Think about the day O.J. Simpson's ex-wife was found murdered. The initial news reports were little blurbs saying that O.J. Simpson's ex-wife was found murdered. No mention even of whether O.J. was a suspect yet, likely because he hadn't been named as one yet. The blanks got filled in later, though, didn't they? Like LATER THAT DAY when more evidence was known.

[Jeep789]

5. Here is my question:

Since a naked 50 year old man jumping on cars might make one suspect that he had some medical problem, e.g. drugs, was a medical opinion ever sought before he was placed in isolation?

[shaniqua6392]

4. My brother in law was beaten and killed in police custody

and it was never even mentioned in the media. It is a great cover up where every member of the media, the county coroner, and even the U.S. District Court in Ohio were complicit. The cameras in his cell were conveniently "broken" at the time he was in custody and thus there was no evidence to charge the officers. Yeah, right.