09-12-2019, 11:55 AM
(09-12-2019, 11:43 AM)Coke6pk Wrote: I guess we will agree to disagree.
I knew the legal vs. illegal argument would be made, but as mentioned by Rob, that's how things change.
I see it as a fact. They were/were not wearing a helmet. They had/did not have a bell. Bike was/was not road worthy.
To me victim shaming is more of something that effects zero percent of the outcome. ie. "She was dressed like she wanted it.". I guess the argument can be made that the helmet didn't effect the outcome, so maybe I'm wrong....
Coke
Whether the helmet affected the injuries is unknown (nobody knows if a head injury was even involved), but it did not affect the collision itself.
Reporting the lack of a helmet absolutely DOES have an effect on readers intrepretation of the story. So given that the reporter doesn't even know if a helmet is relevant, but reported it knowing it WOULD affect how people interpret the story.