Misleading by sensationalizing

[jayem]

This is the headline of an AP story posted on MCNBC.com:

Court OKs sex between teachers, 18-year-olds

In big red letters. Sounds like a court is giving a stamp of approval to teachers having affairs with students of consensual age. A high school music teacher in Washington state did have a sexual relationship with one of his senior students. Which violates the state code of conduct for teachers. And he's no longer teaching. But he was also brought up on criminal charges. And a state Appeals Court unanimously dismissed the case. Because Washington law only criminalizes sex between teachers and students under 18. The teacher's conduct was extremely unprofessional, exploitative, and all-around reprehensible, but it was not a criminal act. The court did exactly what many people say it should do--interpret existing law and not make a new law. I realize the header is just a "grabber." But some who won't fully read the article may get a mistaken impression. The story should have been reported without this kind of sensationalization.

Just my 2 cents.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28654219/

 

[The Nihilist]

It's not sensationalized, it's what happened. Only so many allowances can be made for the careless and stupid.

 

[keith99]

I disagree. It is not misleading, it is a lie.

 

[jayem]

It's not sensationalized, it's what happened. Only so many allowances can be made for the careless and stupid.

The headline is highly misleading. It implies that the court held that teacher/student sexual relationships are "ok." But the court only ruled that no criminal violation occurred. A much better headline would have been something like: No criminal charges in student/teacher sex case. More accurate and less subject to misinterpretation.. Maybe I'm being overly picky, but the original headline was written to be titillating, rather than informative. Which I think shows questionable journalistic ethics.

 

[Washington]

Misleading by sensationalizing

I realize the header is just a "grabber." But some who won't fully read the article may get a mistaken impression. The story should have been reported without this kind of sensationalization.

C'mon now, sensationalism in headlines is a time honored way of drawing attention and customers. Almost everybody recognizes this and makes allowances for it. It comes with the territory. As for those who form their opinions solely from a headline, they deserve the ignorance of their folly.

However, I don't see the headline as misleading at all. Courts rule on matters of law, matters that typically deal with actions: the case here. It determines whether or not a certain action is lawful (Okay) or not lawful (not okay). So the headline is quite accurate in saying the "Court OKs [says it is lawful for] sex between teachers, 18-year-olds," which was the question to be decided in the appeal: Is it OK (lawful) for a teacher and an 18 year-old to have sex? Yes, it is OK (lawful).

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

The headline is certainly misleading. At least the article itself was OK. Had this been reported in the UK tabloid press (notably the Daily Mail), the headline would more likely read "Court rules teachers can have sex with kids" or something equally absurd, and the article would have been full of innuendo and self-righteous middle-class outrage at issues not relevant to the story.

 

[QuakerOats]

I do think the headline is slightly misleading, but only because it appears to say that it's okay for teachers to have sex with their 'of age' students and remain teaching. However, the article, for those who bother to read, clears up any misgivings, I think. I'm actually on the fence about teacher-student relationships. The only reason I can actually think of for it to be discouraged is favouritism, provided the student is at least eighteen, of course, although in this particular case, the age of consent is said to be 16.

 

[Psudopod]

The headline is certainly misleading. At least the article itself was OK. Had this been reported in the UK tabloid press (notably the Daily Mail), the headline would more likely read "Court rules teachers can have sex with kids" or something equally absurd, and the article would have been full of innuendo and self-righteous middle-class outrage at issues not relevant to the story.

Do not get me started on the standards of journalism in the country. Grrr.

 

[Polycarp_fan]

This is the headline of an AP story posted on MCNBC.com:

Court OKs sex between teachers, 18-year-olds

In big red letters. Sounds like a court is giving a stamp of approval to teachers having affairs with students of consensual age. A high school music teacher in Washington state did have a sexual relationship with one of his senior students. Which violates the state code of conduct for teachers. And he's no longer teaching. But he was also brought up on criminal charges. And a state Appeals Court unanimously dismissed the case. Because Washington law only criminalizes sex between teachers and students under 18. The teacher's conduct was extremely unprofessional, exploitative, and all-around reprehensible, but it was not a criminal act. The court did exactly what many people say it should do--interpret existing law and not make a new law. I realize the header is just a "grabber." But some who won't fully read the article may get a mistaken impression. The story should have been reported without this kind of sensationalization.

Just my 2 cents.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28654219/

From nothing to mud to monkeys to man to teachers having sex with their students.

Of course.

That's about right.

 

[Freodin]

From nothing to mud to monkeys to man to teachers having sex with their students.

Of course.

That's about right.

Which has of course nothing to do with the article, or even the OP.

But it gives you another opportunity to rant against something you disagree with.

 

[Tenka]

From nothing to mud to monkeys to man to teachers having sex with their students.

After that, man invented religion.

 

[QuakerOats]

After that, man invented religion.

Hey, it's my profile picture! lol

 

[CreedIsChrist]

Considering the way most high school girls dress im not surprised. The media also promotes these "teacher/student" fantasys which feeds the fire of people who have urges to act out on these desires.

 

[Washington]

The headline is certainly misleading. At least the article itself was OK. Had this been reported in the UK tabloid press (notably the Daily Mail), the headline would more likely read "Court rules teachers can have sex with kids" or something equally absurd, and the article would have been full of innuendo and self-righteous middle-class outrage at issues not relevant to the story.

Q. Just what were you misled into thinking when you read:

"Court OKs sex between teachers, 18-year-olds"​

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Q. Just what were you misled into thinking when you read:

"Court OKs sex between teachers, 18-year-olds"​

That the Court had ruled in favour on a matter on which the legislation was either against or ambiguous, thereby setting a legal precedent that would affect future cases. In fact, it had merely ruled with the current legislation on a point that was quite clear.

Maybe it was just me...