PDA

View Full Version : Is Running Away A Crime?



thedrifter
05-02-05, 10:22 PM
Sent to me by Mark aka The Fontman <br />
<br />
Monday -- May 2, 2005 <br />
<br />
IS RUNNING AWAY A CRIME? <br />
Neal Boorta: <br />
<br />
Well ... everyone else in the free world is going to be weighing in on the Jennifer Wilbanks...

thedrifter
05-03-05, 06:02 AM
Runaway Bride: How Could You DO That? <br />
For the past few days a massive search had been ongoing to locate Jennifer Wilbanks. Wilbanks, whose wedding was planned for today, disappeared while jogging....

thedrifter
05-03-05, 06:09 AM
They're snatching up our pretty, white women! Film at eleven.


The saga of runaway bride Jennifer Wilbanks is more than a hoax, it's the perfect representation of how the misdirection of priorities in the media is as dangerous as the misrepresentation of facts.
View full story:
They're snatching up our pretty, white women! Film at eleven.Nothing scares me more than when I turn on the cable news and come across 'round-the-clock coverage of a missing attractive, young white girl. No, it's not because I am reminded of an impending danger just waiting to befall friends of mine who fit this category- I am too much of a statistics buff to assume that such a thing is a valid fear. You see, contradicting my penchant for hard facts over emotion, I also tend to have long-term paranoia of an epic scale. Nuclear disasters, wars, rampant tornados, and the like are- in my mind- just sitting latent and ready to happen at any moment. (You can take the 13-year old boy away from the television, but you can't take the television out of the 13-year old boy. Alas, that's for another article...)

Thus, to me, an obsession for any specific missing attractive, young white girl is a sign that Americans are once again becoming lulled out of any prioritization of ongoing news by the needs of news outlets to keep pumping out "breaking news" at a steady rate. The viewer, at the same time, is not blameless here. We desire the format of 24-hour cable news because "breaking news" every few months was not doing it for us. We need an world-altering story every week- every few days, even, if it can be spared.


- RELEVANCE OF THE HOAX -
If you're not into reading lofty, extensive books on media philosophy, the news industry's work on the Jennifer Wilbanks case is an excellent crash course on the misplaced priorities of twenty-first century mass media. While I am not sure on the specifics of the criteria for which attractive, young women in peril get national coverage (190,000 American adults go missing every year, so we know the criteria is awfully tough), somehow bride-to-be Ms. Wilbanks fit the description and needed to be rescued. By all of us.

Atop scrolling stock quotes and sports scores, the investigation unfolded. Why would someone want to kidnap and then murder Ms. Wilbanks? What did her fiancé have to gain, if he did it? Would it be an affront to the family's wishes to cover her funeral live, or should TV cameras be kept outside?

The conclusion, of course, satisfied only her family and critics of the media: she was alive the whole time, and merely ran away to New Mexico because of nervousness about her upcoming wedding. (To be fair, we as a nation did learn a lot from this affair: Jennifer's wedding is going to be held in suburban Georgia, there are 14 bridesmaids and 14 groomsmen, and there are 600 invited guests. We don't know how many of those 600 are going to be there, but it is certainly going to be a grand celebration nonetheless.)


- MISDIRECTION, LAZINESS OR BOTH? -
While this story turned out to be a hoax, we do realize that dangers do exist- even in areas of the nation presumed the "safest." As well, no one would pay much attention to the media at all if all stories were prioritized merely by their statistical likelihood of affecting the greatest number of people with the most significant intensity. Thus, one could imagine stories like this- kidnappings, shark bites, lightning strikes, and other things that "aren't ever going to happen to any of us"- serving an anecdotal purpose, helping paint a more precise account of the world we live in. However, this is never the case in reality. Never once during the Wilbanks fiasco was the story told relative to real threats to all Americans. Rather, it- and all stories like it- remain pure dramatic voyeurism, and never news.

Imagine, for a second, the collective efforts of the media utilized over the past few years towards uncovering the fate of a select few gorgeous, young women, being directed at uncovering the next target of a terrorist attack. Imagine the energy spent determining the next big species-that-attacks (killer bees? Sharks? Locusts?), being aimed at the next big accounting fraud to potentially affect the entire economy.

Of course I understand that the media is large enough to focus on more than one story at a time, but don't tell me, after watching the news and reading newspapers for a few weeks, that the priorities are anywhere near straight. Slow news days happen, but don't tell me the media isn't content to match laziness with its viewers when it can.

You see, there really is no such thing as a "slow news day." The seeds of tomorrow's big news days are happening all the time, and it is supposed to be the media's responsibility to uncover them before they're blatantly obvious.




- THE LULL OF COMMERCIAL SATISFACTION -
But its not about anecdotes and slow news days. Its about pandering to the lowest common denominator. People don't tend to prioritize news on their own, and while people will question the facts and specifics of news stories, they don't generally question their priority relative to each other. We assume news professionals have done that well enough for us.

But they don't. From a commercial standpoint, they don't need to. Attractive news reporting may need to be somewhat truthful (I'll skip over the obvious caveats on that one), but certainly it doesn't have to be relevant. The media however, unlike entertainment, are supposed to remain true to the commercially extraneous responsibility of taking that extra step beyond merely what people want, and interjecting some of what they need.

Ahh, but enough of this philosophical babble! Can someone give me some more information about Jennifer Wilbanks' apparently fabulous choice of wedding dress?

Ellie

thedrifter
05-03-05, 08:58 PM
Runaway bride runs into legal complications <br />
<br />
May 3, 2005 <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <br />
by Mike Bates <br />
...

thedrifter
05-04-05, 03:48 PM
Where's The Equality?
By Thomas Lindaman (05/03/05)

Without revealing too much about myself, I’ve been a guy for all of my life. During that time, I’ve seen some changes in how society expects men to act and what constitutes a “real man.” But it was during the late 80s and early 90s that I saw something change, something that made me uncomfortable.

Men started wearing mullets.

Seriously, when I was in college, society seemed to view men more negatively. Some on-campus feminists went so far as to say that men were potential rapists. And if you were a white male of European descent, you were only one step below pond scum. (Apparently, the women who believed this saw my apartment between its annual cleanings.) For the most part, though, this negative view of men has since died down.

Or so I thought until recently. When Jennifer Wilbanks decided to play “Where’s Wilbanks” some of the first reactions I saw from people had one thing in common: they believed her fiancé John Mason was involved somehow. Then as the days went by, Jennifer called Mason and made up an abduction story, only to admit afterwards that she was lying and that it was a voluntary trip. Everyone was relieved that she was okay, but were upset that she would lie about the abduction.

As mad as I was that she lied, it pales in comparison to how mad I am at the clear double standard we cling to when it comes to men and women. Imagine for a moment that it was Mason who ran out on Wilbanks. We would be looking for torches and pitchforks to go after him like the villagers in “Frankenstein.” We would be calling him every bad name in the book, including the ones we save for just such an occasion. And we would be making Mason out to be “the typical male” as though the men of the world elected him as our spokesman.

But we’re not holding the same level of contempt for Wilbanks. Although we’re mad at her for what she did, there seems to be an undertone of “we’ll let you go with a warning this time.” I sincerely hope someone holds her accountable for what she did, especially Mason because from where I sit he’s just gotten a “Get Out of Trouble With Jennifer Free” card for life. But it doesn’t change the fact that we have been conditioned to assume the worst about men.

Having said that, though, I have to admit that we’ve brought at least some of that negative feeling on ourselves. Men have such a checkered past when it comes to women that you could use our history to hold the world’s largest chess tournament. We men have seen women as weak and incapable for centuries. Hell, some of my gender still do. Yet, most of us have figured out that women for the most part can do anything a man can do. (Well, with the exception of getting the humor of the Three Stooges, farts, and Andrew Dice Clay.) In fact, women have been making great strides within the past century to go from “the fairer sex” to “the sex who can change a tire, work a 40 hour work week, make dinner for the family, and still find time to yell at their husbands for leaving the toilet seat up.”

This is where the double standard comes into play. We love to think women are just as capable as men when it comes to making positive contributions to society, but we don’t think they’re capable of doing bad stuff. And if we do catch them doing something wrong or illegal, we’re more apt to forgive them than we would men. Men screw up, but so do women, and it’s time we all come to that realization.

And the time to do that is right now. Jennifer Wilbanks should not just be ashamed of what she did to her family and her fiancé, but also what she’s done to perpetuate the anti-male stereotype in our society. Call me a misogynist, but I think she deserves to be punished for what she did, and I think I have the perfect punishment.

She’ll have to marry me.

Seriously, though, after a stunt like this, you can’t wipe the slate clean and start over. There’s talk that she’s already asking Mason to forgive her and go ahead with the wedding as planned. If I could give a piece of advice to Mr. Mason, it would be to forgive her for running off, lying about being abducted, and getting so many people worried, but to break off the engagement. I say this for two reasons. One, her actions over the past few days have shown that she’s not mentally or emotionally ready for marriage, both of which are absolutely necessary for a marriage to last longer than Paris Hilton’s attention span. Two, it would make things a lot easier for the punishment I mentioned earlier to come to fruition.

But on a much larger level, we need to stop jumping to negative conclusions about men. Sure, there are times we’re pig-headed, oafish, and borderline Neanderthals, but that’s why you love us. Men are the ultimate fix-er-uppers. But I will tell you from personal experience that there are more than a few women out there who could benefit from being held to the same standard as men in that regard.

After all, men and women are supposed to be treated equally, right?




Thomas Lindaman is a columnist and editor for CommonConservative.com. He holds a Masters degree in Mass Communication from Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa, and a Bachelors degree in English with a minor in Journalism from the University of Northern Iowa in Cedar Falls, Iowa. He lives in Des Moines where he works for a mortgage company.


Ellie

thedrifter
05-05-05, 08:46 PM
This Just In: We Have Nothing to Report

May 2, 2005


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Isaiah Z. Sterrett
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



WELL, I’m relieved. I was certain that I was the only person bored to tears over this current batch of faux news, but apparently I’m not alone. Far from it: even the New York Times, which has never in its history run out of glowering fluff to print, has lost all concept of what to do. The Newspaper of Record used space on its website this week to describe one of its op-eds thus: “The recent shootings have changed the way people drive, making them use their turn signals and stay on their best behavior.” In keeping with this theme, the Times will report next week on new statistics regarding stop signs in low-income urban areas.

True, the so-labeled “Runaway Bride” certainly held my attention for the first twenty-seven hours of non-stop cable coverage I watched, but I grew weary of the whole thing after Ashton Kutcher agreed to play the fiancé in the upcoming Lifetime version. (Whether Demi will portray the mysterious vanishing woman is still unknown, but my sources assure me that the prospect is on the table.)

Jennifer Wilbanks’ disappearance warranted coverage, especially after we found out that it was all a prank. But ten minutes after that, we should have dropped it. “In-depth coverage” isn’t needed. At the risk of sounding like a member of NARAL Pro-Choice America, this is a family matter, to be worked out by private individuals. Self-involved TV interviewers have nothing to do with it.

I mean, let’s face it: people disappear all the time without any fanfare at all. During primary season last year, Joe Lieberman went missing from the entire Democratic presidential campaign, but did anyone care? The answer is no. Where was the “analysis” of that, CNN?

This story is dull even from a human-interest point of view. I keep trying to find the exciting part, but there isn’t one. What I know so far is that a woman about to get married panicked, likely as a result of the pending nuptials, so she ran away. Then, in a twist, she came back. Doesn’t it just give you goose bumps?

And another thing: I think we’ve done it on the Michael Jackson case. I know I should care, given that…actually, no—there’s precisely no reason in the universe I should care about Michael Jackson. If we trust the legal system, and I do on occasion, then we ought to let it work. If something newsworthy happens—we get a verdict, for example—then I’d be happy to read about it. Or, if the jury seems especially slanted toward either Mr. Jackson or the prosecution, I’ll hear about that, too. But endless questions about the significance of Juror #4’s nose hair don’t do much in the way of improving the “national dialogue” liberals are always huffing about.

Admittedly, I care more about Jackson than Ms. Wilbanks, but they come awfully close to a tie. Though I’m generally fascinated by petty brides-to-be acting selfishly and garish rich guys wearing pajamas to court, I’m rather ready for these stories to end. The trouble is, as soon as these end, others will replace them. It’s as vicious a cycle as ever was.

I’m not saying that all stories are overblown, of course. I thought 9/11 was pretty important, so I’m glad we talked about it for awhile. Also, that silly tussle where John Kerry thought he was going to kick George Bush out of the White House probably should have been reported. The Clinton impeachment, back in the ‘90s, was similarly deserving of decent press. I’d argue that Jennifer Wilbanks doesn’t rise to that level of importance, but I don’t like to use the words “Clinton” and “rise” in the same paragraph.

You always hear that everybody deserves their fifteen minutes of fame. Fifteen minutes is fine with me, but any longer than that is really pushing it. If everybody gets fifteen minutes, we need to start timing things better. Right now, Jennifer Wilbanks and Michael Jackson have taken their fifteen minutes of fame at least forty of fifty times, and are consequently stealing from everyone else. That’s a scam, and I am appalled. As a result, I will be spending the next 10-12 months reporting on this topic, and I will expect everyone to pretend to care about what I have to say.

Isaiah Z. Sterrett

Ellie

thedrifter
05-09-05, 06:36 AM
Wedding Etiquette for the Runaway Bride

The 13 questions Emily Post never thought of answering

By PATRICIA MARX

. Who pays for what?

There are no hard-and-fast rules today about who is responsible for footing the bill, but usually the family of the felon pays for the getaway limo before the wedding, the cancellation announcements, the defense lawyer, the court rehearsal dinner and the bail bond. The groom pays for his boutonniere as well as the bride's electronic monitoring bracelet.

2. If you are greeted by a swarm of reporters upon your arrival at Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson airport, must you ask all of them to your wedding?

You are under no obligation to invite the media to help you celebrate your "day of dreams." It might, however, be a fortuitous way of cutting down on the costs of a wedding photographer.

3. What is the proper attire for a bride?

Remember when a bride wore white? Those days are gone. The bride of the moment is always on the go--a woman who is therefore in the market for comfort, comfort, comfort! And that is why, for the big day, I recommend activewear, maybe with a little Lycra.

4. Does anyone still wear a veil?

A veil is optional, but in an airport the bride-to-be traditionally covers her newly shorn head with a blanket.

5. What's the deal with the bridesmaids' dresses? Who shells out the money for those things?

By custom, each bridesmaid pays for her own dress. The money she earns by selling her confidential story to the tabloids, however, will more than compensate her for the expense.

6. Anything I should know about the honeymoon?

The honeymoon is certainly one of the most magical parts of the wedding process. Not everyone would agree with me, but I think it's O.K. to go on your honeymoon alone, without your spouse-to-be. And I see nothing wrong with taking off before the wedding--especially since, in the days that follow, you may be in a seclusion kind of mood.

7. Any tips on honeymoon destinations?

Some words of caution for anyone planning an escape to Las Vegas: don't believe them when they say, "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas." Cable news stations are poised to report anything you do there, and also in Albuquerque, N.M.

8. Should the bride change her last name when she gets married?

This is less a matter of good manners than of practicality. If your picture has been seen on the front page of every major newspaper in the country, plus the AOL welcome screen and telephone poles and shop windows in your community, then, Missy, taking your husband's name is just not going to help.

9. What does the best man do?

The best man holds the rings during the ceremony, offers the first toast to the newlyweds and makes sure the groom arrives on time for his polygraph test.

10. How about the ushers?

A few nights before the wedding, the ushers organize the stag party. But hangover or no hangover, the next day they are expected to be part of the bridal manhunt.

11. And the father of the groom--what are his responsibilities?

The proud man is usually called upon to release a public statement that his son, the chump, intends to stand by the bride, assuming he can find her.

12. When do the thank-you notes have to be in the mail?

The bride and/or the groom is allowed as much as one month after the gift registry has been posted on the CNN website or has been ridiculed by late-night talk-show hosts, whichever comes first.

213. If, for some farfetched reason, the wedding is postponed, how and when must the guests be notified?

Oh, I wouldn't worry about that. News gets around.


Ellie