New Low: State Senator Arrested for Raping His Own Foster Children

[Lemur]

This must be some sort of new low (http://www.keloland.com/NewsDetail6162.cfm?Id=0,57158) for American politics. I'm not easily able to think of a more hideous crime committed by a standing politician. If you've got kids, you may want to sit down before clicking the button below.

Former SD Legislator Arrested On Sex Charges


https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/15508.jpg

A former South Dakota lawmaker is accused of molesting his own foster children and legislative pages.

Ted Klaudt, 49, a Republican rancher from Walker, faces a long list of charges: eight counts of rape, two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor, two counts of witness tampering, sexual contact with a person under 16, and stalking.

Court documents mention five possible victims. Three were foster children between the ages of 15 and 19 who lived with Klaudt's family. One is a cousin of one of those girls, and the fifth is a friend of Klaudt's daughter.

In the most disturbing accusation, the girls say Klaudt had them convinced they could earn up to $20,000 by donating their eggs to a fertility clinic. And even though he has no medical training, the girls say Klaudt did all the supposed "exams" and "procedures" himself.

Former State Representative Ted Klaudt is accused of manipulating, molesting, intimidating and threatening teenage girls who the state of South Dakota paid him to raise.

Lou Raguse: Ted what do you have to say about these charges?
Klaudt: No comment.
Lou: All your voters over the years? What do you want them to know?
Klaudt: (no response)

The first victim to come forward told investigators Klaudt offered to earn her enough money to pay for college by helping her donate her eggs to a fertility clinic. She says Klaudt used a fake email address from the supposed clinic agent to trick her into letting him perform what's supposed to be a surgical procedure.

The victims say Klaudt touched them while they were foster children at his home here in Walker. But the girls say the molestation also happened in Pierre during legislative sessions while some of them also served as pages.

Five different girls now say Klaudt did things ranging from manual "breast exams" to the painful procedure of actually going inside of them with a speculum and collecting body fluids. The girls say when they cried, Klaudt gave them a beer and told them to toughen up.

Lou: Ted, do you deny the accusations?
Klaudt: (no response)

He's not telling us anything. But when investigators questioned him in February. He admitted to much of what the girls allege, including sending messages from the fake email account. Klaudt told investigators the girls asked him to help them donate the eggs. But he admits never sending off a specimen.

Inside his home, investigators found Klaudt's briefcase filled with all the tools the girls say he used in his supposed "exams."

The charges reflect alleged crimes against two of the five girls. The most serious of the crimes, 2nd degree rape, carries up to 50 years in prison.

Friday, Klaudt's bail was set at $100,000 on the Hughes County charges. He was taken to jail, where he'll be held until he can make bail.

Below are links to the affidavit and warrant documents.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

As a Catholic, I do not support the death penalty.

Some days, that is harder than others.

[Strike For The South]

As a protestant. I have no qualms with the death penalty.

Some days its easier than others

[Ice]

As a Catholic, I do not support the death penalty.

Some days, that is harder than others.

Nah, no need to. There are worse things than death. Fine him heavily and send him to prison for the rest of his life where he gets raped daily. Also, make him do hard manual labor. Like I said, we can do better than the death penalty.

[Strike For The South]

Nah, no need to. There are worse things than death. Fine him heavily and send him to prison for the rest of his life where he gets raped daily. Also, make him do hard manual labor. Like I said, we can do better than the death penalty.

Or we could tie a stone to his legs and drown him. No burden on the taxpayer. As the economist you are you should think of money right?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Well, assuming even a tenth of what has been alleged is true, I hope this fellow never sees the light of day again -- save by looking up from a walled exercise yard.

He needs a lot of time for prayer.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

As a protestant. I have no qualms with the death penalty.

Some days its easier than others

Well turned my young Texan friend. :laugh4:


You have a refreshingly direct quality about you that is familiar -- I always did enjoy chatting with the native Texans when I lived there.

[Strike For The South]

Well turned my young Texan friend. :laugh4:


You have a refreshingly direct quality about you that is familiar -- I always did enjoy chatting with the native Texans when I lived there.

I'd make a bad polotician:laugh4: . Saying what I feel has always been eaiser.

[Csargo]

I agree with Strike.

[Samurai Waki]

I would make him eat himself, starting from the feet up. But then again, I'm a tyrant. :furious3:

[AntiochusIII]

Or we could tie a stone to his legs and drown him. No burden on the taxpayer. As the economist you are you should think of money right?Dead bodies in local waters tend to be sources of disease. :balloon:

The crime is heinous; I cannot understand the mentality of those who act upon such urges. Why?

Whatever the case, being former Senator won't likely protect him from the law. It is ultimately rather sad though, no full redress can ever be given to the abused children by anyone, ever.

[ShadeHonestus]

This must be some sort of new low for American politics. I'm not easily able to think of a more hideous crime committed by a standing politician. If you've got kids, you may want to sit down before clicking the button below.


Fortunately its not a new low, by far, for the foster kid program or by the citizens that our politicians represent. I still keep hoping we've already hit bottom there, yet we keep coming up with worse stuff.

[KafirChobee]

Fortunately its not a new low, by far, for the foster kid program or by the citizens that our politicians represent. I still keep hoping we've already hit bottom there, yet we keep coming up with worse stuff.
Agree, and there in lies the problem ... screening of foster parents. In most States it is a simple background check, no pschologic sit down or even a test (that is realistic). That someone would want to take in the problem children of others, or wards of the state ... is a wonder. Most do it for what ever - you tell me, no doubt some portion to serve children in need of a proper home.
The problem as I perceive it is the bureaucracy (ies) overseeing the operation. They are undermanned (as are all social services), self serving, and in some cases just plain lazy. It is one of those things that can't necessarily be solved by legislation, but needs to be given some sort of common sense rationality. I mean, all it takes for a child to be taken away from a caring parent and put into the "system" is an accusation from someone that hates them - the parent (s) ends up on the defensive and while they prove themselves their kids are tossed into the "system" (which includes foster care). The idea that a child is better off without their parent stems from a fubar in the FDR admin. - and it has been propagated as a good thing ever since. Investigating true child abuse is a curiousity at best - especially today when an angry child can dial 911 after being spanked for burning down the garage, and the parent be arrested because of that call. Then the local media gets to work on the "item", and suddenly the parents are monsters - never the child, with a serious pyro problem (or what ever). Regardless, before committing judgement on any case - wait long enough to find out if there are alternative motives, from the kid (s) making the accusation.

In this case? He's a sick f', since he's already admitted it. But, what put these kids into the sytem that allowed this guy to cherry pick his foster kids?

That this particular individual had the notoriety of being an elected official makes it news worthy. Other such incidents are covered up by the fostercare system. It is at it was created, in 1933 - and not much has changed.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I may be a Catholic born in Ohio, but I'm in full agreement with the Texas Protestant. *tips hat to Strike*


Dead bodies in local waters tend to be sources of disease.

Sounds like we may need to use an ocean on this one. That fellow does look like he has a lot of body mass.


There are worse things than death.

But not Hell. Let's let Satan take the burden off American taxpayers.*

Crazed Rabbit
*That sounds really weird, doesn't it?

[Ice]

As the economist you are you should think of money right?

It's more completed than that though. The amount of labor he preforms in his lifetime could pay everything we spend to keep him alive. :yes:

[Samurai Waki]

I still like the idea of making him eat his limbs, and if he follows through with sed task, we might give him the honor of death.

[PanzerJaeger]

When you look like that, molestation might seem like a valid option for receiving female attention... yuk! :shame:

[AntiochusIII]

I may be a Catholic born in Ohio, but I'm in full agreement with the Texas Protestant. *tips hat to Strike*Christians and Americans; not a world apart, man :)

Sounds like we may need to use an ocean on this one. That fellow does look like he has a lot of body mass.And ruin my sushi? Hell no!

When you look like that, molestation might seem like a valid option for receiving female attention... yuk! While I'm quite sure that obesity is a rather...personal subject for the average American, this guy clearly has a problem with it. Such extremities are the norm in America, though. We have anorexics and we have the unbelievably oversized, not that this is relevant to the topic at hand.

*******

I wonder, though, for those of you more experienced in the world than I am: What makes people act out those disturbing desires and continuously push them to the limit? Is it an entanglement? A lack of conscience? A one-time slip that, upon committing, cannot be stopped? Or is it malicious planning, as the choice of foster children might suggest?

The last part in particular, if true, baffles me.

[doc_bean]

Was he strongly opposed to homosexuals ? Those always seem to be the freaky ones..



Five different girls now say Klaudt did things ranging from manual "breast exams" to the painful procedure of actually going inside of them with a speculum and collecting body fluids. The girls say when they cried, Klaudt gave them a beer and told them to toughen up.


Damn, that's pretty sick. It isn't especially cruel or sadistic (compared to actual rape), but it's just twisted.


I wonder, though, for those of you more experienced in the world than I am: What makes people act out those disturbing desires and continuously push them to the limit? Is it an entanglement? A lack of conscience? A one-time slip that, upon committing, cannot be stopped? Or is it malicious planning, as the choice of foster children might suggest?

The last part in particular, if true, baffles me.

I think it's somewhat of a slippery slope thing. It's a probably always been a fantasy of his, but then many people have weird and slightly twisted fantasies. But then he decided to have foster children, so he could live the fantasy a little more, he probably told himself he'd never actually do it, the fist few years. But then his imagination wasn't enough, perhaps he just bought the medical instruments at first so he could jack off looking at them next to a picture of one of the girls, and then perhaps finally he caved and actually went ahead and did it, after which point he couldn't stop himself anymore.

At least that's the way I understand it happens with some pedophiles, others just never seem to have tried to resist though. He might be one of the latter and have planned it all along.

[English assassin]

Let's let Satan take the burden off American taxpayers.*

Crazed Rabbit
*That sounds really weird, doesn't it?

Yeah, but in a kinda siggable way.

OHHH, wait. Where's my sig gone? Dammit, I feel naked without it.

[Mikeus Caesar]

Ted Klaudt, 49, a Republican rancher

Republicans - we support American family values.

[doc_bean]

Yeah, but in a kinda siggable way.

OHHH, wait. Where's my sig gone? Dammit, I feel naked without it.

It's still there, I assume you've just disabled them altogether ?

I would have put it in my sig, but I feel I've been messing with it too much lately.

[Odin]

I wonder, though, for those of you more experienced in the world than I am: What makes people act out those disturbing desires and continuously push them to the limit? Is it an entanglement? A lack of conscience? A one-time slip that, upon committing, cannot be stopped? Or is it malicious planning, as the choice of foster children might suggest?



Its all that and accessability. When I was in high school many moons ago a pretty good friend of mine's father was busted for molesting his daughter (and my friend).

It was hard at 15 to comprehend and deal with for me as a buddy, I can only imagine how he felt, actually I know how he felt it was shame. They ended up moving. I think it comes down to creating a situation of control/power and accessability to someone in a weaker position.

A foster parent/child relationship seems the perfect fit. Others have mentioned thier faith in context to what should happen, well Im not christian, jewish, muslim i've been a pagan for years but have employed compassion when I can and when its meritted.

in this case this person should be sent away for long long time and his victims given counsul. If they gave him the death penalty, i'd sleep fine at night too.

:no:

[Major Robert Dump]

That guy is so fat and it's bcuz of teh trans fatz, he wouldn't have done that if not for the trans fatz its not his own faultz

[DemonArchangel]

He should be sent to prison, where he will be raped daily by Big Bubba.

[Don Corleone]

I haven't had a chance to read the entire article yet, but is it possible that the guy has been falsely accused? If so, shame on the girls. If not... well, Gehenna awaits.

[ShadeHonestus]

I haven't had a chance to read the entire article yet, but is it possible that the guy has been falsely accused? If so, shame on the girls. If not... well, Gehenna awaits.


Well from what I read, comprehension in question as I was wincing half the time, he confessed to part or not all of the accusations.

[HoreTore]

Haha! His email address is listed on page 7 here:

http://66.231.15.194/ClassLibrary/Page/Information/DataInstances/4523/Files/2912/PDF-Affidavit.pdf

....As well as the testimony of the girls...sick stuff.

[doc_bean]

I haven't had a chance to read the entire article yet, but is it possible that the guy has been falsely accused? If so, shame on the girls. If not... well, Gehenna awaits.


He's not telling us anything. But when investigators questioned him in February. He admitted to much of what the girls allege, including sending messages from the fake email account. Klaudt told investigators the girls asked him to help them donate the eggs. But he admits never sending off a specimen.

Inside his home, investigators found Klaudt's briefcase filled with all the tools the girls say he used in his supposed "exams."

Doesn't look like they're lying.

[Don Corleone]

Well, he's a first class pig. I believe the golden rule is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Sounds like they should ship free speculums to the inmates at the prison ole Klaudt winds up in. :kiss2:

[ShadeHonestus]

The one thing I do find interesting about the article is their going overboard to state he's a republican. I know that is just the nature of the beast but when they go so far as to say "republican rancher" when they could have stayed with the earlier introduction as a republican state senator...well that's interesting at least and it gives context for this topic.

So its not a hijack, but topic within a topic. :beam:

I'd have to point out the NY times awhile ago. The case of the boy in Arkansas who was kidnapped and murdered. The AP reports were washed down when ran in the NY times. The actual story was that the boy was kidnapped, raped and died due to the raping. The story also failed to mention that the kidnappers were gay as opposed to just malicious hillbillies (ala deliverance). Not to mention that in their stories ran about the Ft. Dix episode that they went so far as to say that "religion was not a motivating factor for the plot" yet in the tapes the people spoke about doing this in the name of Allah, killing in the name of Allah, and doing so while dressed in religious garb. The Times and other papers around the country have stated that they omit these facts as to prevent backlash against gay or Muslim citizens/civilians.

I find it interesting then, that they go so far in these cases but politically they are always quick to point out affiliation. Do you think that the above crimes had less to do with their motivating affiliation than does this senator being a Republican? Its an interesting question.

[Lemur]

The one thing I do find interesting about the article is their going overboard to state he's a republican. I know that is just the nature of the beast but when they go so far as to say "republican rancher" when they could have stayed with the earlier introduction as a republican state senator...well that's interesting at least and it gives context for this topic.
I'm not sure I understand. The word "republican" is used exactly once in the article. Are you suggesting that they should not have mentioned his affiliation? Or is it the fact that his party was mentioned in a separate sentence from his office? On the surface, it seems as though you're crying "BIAS!" a little prematurely.

[Don Corleone]

You seem to be implying that there's a bias to the mainstream media there Shades. And we all know that cannot possibly be true. :inquisitive:

If anything, the mainstream media, the New York Times included, do the bidding of the Bush administration. Just ask George Soros or Dennis Kucinich.

[Don Corleone]

I'm not sure I understand. The word "republican" is used exactly once in the article. Are you suggesting that they should not have mentioned his affiliation? Or is it the fact that his party was mentioned in a separate sentence from his office? On the surface, it seems as though you're crying "BIAS!" a little prematurely.

What exactly did his party affiliation have to do with the story? I'm willing to bet you a ham sandwich that if it was Democrat, the NY Times wouldn't have mentioned the party affiliation.

[doc_bean]

The one thing I do find interesting about the article is their going overboard to state he's a republican. I know that is just the nature of the beast but when they go so far as to say "republican rancher" when they could have stayed with the earlier introduction as a republican state senator...well that's interesting at least and it gives context for this topic.


Like Lemur pointed out, they mention it only once. You expect them to talk about a politician without mentioning his party ? That never happens.

EDIT: Don, I never read a single article about a representative without it mentioning his/her party.

[Lemur]

I'm really not trying to be obtuse, but what exactly are you trying to say? That a South Dakota new report should omit the party affiliation of a serving politician involved in a hideous crime ... to counter-balance the New York Times? :dizzy2:

[Don Corleone]

Actually, I've seen several times where party affiliation gets dropped when the offending party should have a D next to their name. For example, when Chandra Levy disappeared, CNN and the NY Times laid the blame at the feet of CONSERVATIVE Rep. Gary Condit.

[ShadeHonestus]

Are you suggesting that they should not have mentioned his affiliation?....On the surface, it seems as though you're crying "BIAS!" a little prematurely.

Calm down and read the question again. Its about stating/ommitting affiliation in regards to different types of affiliations and their purposes.



The word "republican" is used exactly once in the article. Or is it the fact that his party was mentioned in a separate sentence from his office?

I found the fact that the single reference to affiliation was mentioned seperate from his office as state representative (I think I err'd and said senator) as a seperate interesting event. What does it mean to be a republican rancher? Are ranchers defined among themselves as democrats or republicans? Do you only purchase certain breeds of cattle as a republican rancher? What was the purpose of stating him as a republican rancher or was it just a very poor job of writing.


Doc and Lemur

I'll make it easier and quote myself here with the question and notice I'm not stating Democrat or Republican.




I'd have to point out the NY times awhile ago. The case of the boy in Arkansas who was kidnapped and murdered. The AP reports were washed down when ran in the NY times. The actual story was that the boy was kidnapped, raped and died due to the raping. The story also failed to mention that the kidnappers were gay as opposed to just malicious hillbillies (ala deliverance). Not to mention that in their stories ran about the Ft. Dix episode that they went so far as to say that "religion was not a motivating factor for the plot" yet in the tapes the people spoke about doing this in the name of Allah, killing in the name of Allah, and doing so while dressed in religious garb. The Times and other papers around the country have stated that they omit these facts as to prevent backlash against gay or Muslim citizens/civilians.


I find it interesting then, that they go so far in these cases but politically they are always quick to point out affiliation. Do you think that the above crimes had less to do with their motivating affiliation than does this representative being a Republican? Its an interesting question.

[HoreTore]

Inside his home, investigators found Klaudt's briefcase filled with all the tools the girls say he used in his supposed "exams."

The full list of what was found in that briefcase:

- 3 pipettes
- 1 vibrator
- 2 syringes
- 4-play sexual aid
- 1 porn movie, "Teen Sneakers"
- a tape measure
- 6 plastic speculas
- 7 blue latex gloves
- a stethoscope
- a caliper
- a bottle of antiseptic gel
- a roll of black electrical tape
- telephone cord
- Crimson Contour modeling agency applications
- an egg donor application filled out by one of the foster children
- a tablet paper with notes, including menstruation circles for the girls

Nothing you wouldn't find in any politicians briefcase.

[doc_bean]

Do you think that the above crimes had less to do with their motivating affiliation than does this representative being a Republican?

Doesn't matter, a paper should always write the party and state of a representative, it's just good reporting. Relgion or sexual orientation are something different, since they're not normally mentioned.

The fact that he's a republican has nothing to do with the crime, of course.

[Lemur]

And Fox News mislabeled Mark Foley as D-Florida. These sorts mistakes happen all the time, especially with the 24-hour news biz. Example:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/Foleyd-florida.jpg

If you want to expound in a thread about the evil liberal media conspiracy, maybe that should be its own thing. I don't think the report at the start of the thread supports the thesis.

[Lemur]

Calm down and read the question again. Its about stating/ommitting affiliation in regards to different types of affiliations and their purposes.
If I were any calmer, I'd be asleep. You make a number of assertions about reports being watered down, etc., and you provide no links to anything, which makes it impossible to verify your take.

At the end of the day, this should be a different thread. Period. The South Dakota report was perfectly correct to note the state senator's political affiliation; such is the norm in reporting.

[ShadeHonestus]

doc

This is the kind of answer I'm looking for, thank you for considering the question.



Doesn't matter, a paper shoudl always write the party and state of a representative, it's just good reporting.

Agreed, but I still question why its printed as a republican rancher. Is the rural/urban vote divide being played to here or is it just bad writing.



Relgion or sexual orientation are something different, since they're not normally mentioned.The fact that he's a republican has nothing to do with the crime, of course.

As we agree that stating politcal affiliation along side one's office is good reporting do you see choosing to omit affiliation, for political correctness or political purpose, which actually factors into a crime as good reporting?

[Don Corleone]

At the end of the day, this should be a different thread. Period. The South Dakota report was perfectly correct to note the state senator's political affiliation; such is the norm in reporting. What about the senator who killed somebody driving 115 miles an hour on backroads in Montana (or was it South Dakota yet again). He was a Democrat and the media were consistent that describing him as a Democrat was not relevant to the story...

It's okay Lemur, you are right about one thing. It's time to move on. This is not a point that's going to be decided in this lifetime, let alone in this thread. You guys have the mainstream media, we have talk radio. :shrug:

Anyway, other than calling for the man's hide to be nailed to the barn wall (or not) and inching our way towards yet another death penalty debate, is there anything else to discuss in this thread?

[doc_bean]

As we agree that stating politcal affiliation along side one's office is good reporting do you see choosing to omit affiliation, for political correctness or political purpose, which actually factors into a crime as good reporting?

Political corrections shouldn't apply to political parties. God knows the partisans have their head in the sand enough.

It should, IMO always be mentioned for a politician in office.

[ShadeHonestus]

Political corrections shouldn't apply to political parties. God knows the partisans have their head in the sand enough.


Aye, but do you believe that affiliations should be watered down or ommitted when it comes to sexual orientation or religion when it is a factor in the crime being reported? Like when some christian fundamentalist congregation cause people to die from neglect, refusing medical treatment for children on the basis of religioun etc etc. I find that a crime and believe the affiliation important to report and not deny or water down. Its about properly informing the public so we can make informed personal choices everyday either about politics or what fruit to buy.

[doc_bean]

Aye, but do you believe that affiliations should be watered down or ommitted when it comes to sexual orientation or religion when it is a factor in the crime being reported?

No, though whether or not they are a factor is a tough call. Some papers love to point out everything possibly linking pedophila with homosexuality, others support the hypothesis that they are not causally realted and choose not to draw specific attention to it.

It can hardly be called bias really. It's an interpretation like every article is one. Bias is not reporting things contrary to your viewpoint, be they scientific studies, protests, political debates or whatever and/or drawing deliberate attention to anything supporting you viewpoint, or purposely presenting something in a way that supports your viewpoint (omitting inconvienent facts).

EDIT: with the last point I don't mean something like not reporting a couple of sicko's were also gay, more things like not reporting on a counter protest, highlighting a single point in a court document (see Fox and gitmo) and things like that.

[ShadeHonestus]

It can hardly be called bias really. It's an interpretation like every article is one. Bias is not reporting things contrary to your viewpoint, be they scientific studies, protests, political debates or whatever and/or drawing deliberate attention to anything supporting you viewpoint, or purposely presenting something in a way that supports your viewpoint (omitting inconvienent facts).

Bias is omitting facts particularly entwined and substantial with the topic because they are contrary to your personal viewpoint. I would even go so far as to say that reporting only supportive evidence of your viewpoint and not reporting evidence to its contrary when searched in equal diligence is Bias. Bias is not reporting facts because they are not known to you or because they are not relevant. Reporting is reporting less we all fall directly to editorials.



with the last point I don't mean something like not reporting a couple of sicko's were also gay

A gay couple who committed a crime of continued rape after the kidnapping of a 13 year old boy. It is in how you write things, but is it not also in how you not write things? This was after all at the time of the Mathew Shepard crime.

And as an FYI, I argue this omission and failure of many to run the story as a person who's only contrary stand to gay and lesbian rights is that of marriage by law which predicates law on behavior claimed by biology. If they find the gay gene I would have no problems with legal gay marriage.

The stating of religious motives as "unclear" or earlier as "not" a factor for the Ft Dix six is something even more substantial in its omission. These can be found in all colors across the political spectrum and in virtually all reporting industries, but to claim it does not happen or to place it solely on one side is disingenuous is it not? Is not the smallest ommittion of fact that IS substantial to the crime important to report for the sake of integrity? Wouldn't both sides here in the U.S. get more political mileage out of their press bias if they showed more integrity in the reporting of criminal acts alone?

[ShadeHonestus]

If I were any calmer, I'd be asleep. You make a number of assertions about reports being watered down, etc., and you provide no links to anything, which makes it impossible to verify your take.

Read the NY times, its free online I believe or at least some is. I get mine a day (sometimes two days) late via the mail...sometimes I read it, sometimes it goes straight into the recycle bin and sometimes I never get it. But when I do read it I tend to utilize critical thinking and memory.



At the end of the day, this should be a different thread. Period. The South Dakota report was perfectly correct to note the state senator's political affiliation; such is the norm in reporting.

Perfectly correct it is not or did you miss the part where he can only buy Holsteins as a rancher because he is Republican. The question is reporting substantial facts when due to affiliation, politically, religiously, sexually, boy scouts, girl scouts, blues clues fan club...whatever. Their error in reporting gives pretext to this discussion. I'll note too that you spewed off replies, some even with shiney photos that were further off topic than my question was.

-edit- gd typos

[Lemur]

I need to "calm down" and I "spew off replies"? Heavens, next you'll be telling me that I'm hysterical and womanly.

You seem rather more involved in the reporting of the story than its substance.

[ShadeHonestus]

I need to "calm down" and I "spew off replies"? Heavens, next you'll be telling me that I'm hysterical and womanly.



Are you hysterical and womanly? I would not have guessed, but this begs the question now.

For definition:

Spewing - replies without considering the actual questions asked and trying to pigeon hole assertions as arguments stating leftists bias.

Calm Down - the characterizing and summation of my post and question as "crying BIAS!". This showed to me a hurried reply without forethought.



You seem rather more involved in the reporting of the story than its substance.

Consideration of the reporting is part of digesting any news story is it not? I sincerely hope that you subscribe to this as your posts elsewhere show you as more informed.

[Lemur]

I think you left some condescension on your chin, friend. And there's still some snideness on your plate.

[ShadeHonestus]

I think you left some condescension on your chin, friend. And there's still some snideness on your plate.

I think you served enough of that prior to my posts and following my question to provide a worldwide shortage.

[doc_bean]

Bias is omitting facts particularly entwined and substantial with the topic because they are contrary to your personal viewpoint. I would even go so far as to say that reporting only supportive evidence of your viewpoint and not reporting evidence to its contrary when searched in equal diligence is Bias.



Which is what I said.


Bias is not reporting facts because they are not known to you or because they are not relevant. Reporting is reporting less we all fall directly to editorials.

And like I pointed out, what is relevant and what is not largely depends on your viewpoint, it isn't always intentional that things get ommitted.



A gay couple who committed a crime of continued rape after the kidnapping of a 13 year old boy. It is in how you write things, but is it not also in how you not write things? This was after all at the time of the Mathew Shepard crime.

Well, i'm unfamiliar with the story so i can't really comment on that, however the fact that they were a couple shouldhave been reported I would think, combined with their names or gender it should have been pretty obvious they were a gay couple, whether or not that was explicitely stated.


And as an FYI, I argue this omission and failure of many to run the story as a person who's only contrary stand to gay and lesbian rights is that of marriage by law which predicates law on behavior claimed by biology. If they find the gay gene I would have no problems with legal gay marriage.


The stating of religious motives as "unclear" or earlier as "not" a factor for the Ft Dix six is something even more substantial in its omission.

Once again i'm unfamiliar with the case, so i can't comment on it.


These can be found in all colors across the political spectrum and in virtually all reporting industries, but to claim it does not happen or to place it solely on one side is disingenuous is it not?

I never claimed either. I just said bias is less frequent then some posters here seem to suppose.



Is not the smallest ommittion of fact that IS substantial to the crime important to report for the sake of integrity?



Again, what is important ? If a muslim commits a crime is it important that he's a muslim ? If a christian commits a crime isn't it important that he is a muslim ? If a homosexual rapes a boy is it important to point out he's gay ? If a straight person rapes a child does it get pointed out that he's straight.

Most people (in the modern US at least) seem to have a very specific viewpoint on a lot of issues, and any tiny detail that supports their viewpoint is seen as important, while everything that counters their viewpoint is often ignored. This isn't biased reporting, it's biased reading.

Unfortunatly, it also causes biased reporting, because 'those people aren't afraid to tell the truth' as the average person with his head in the sand would say. Look at Fox ! If you can't admit that it's a hopelessly biased channel than you should really question your own 'bias', and try a little more open perspective on live.

And don't claim that I'm denying that certain papers or channels aren't biased towards the other side, I just can't give a clear example.