Originally Posted by :
Now that the full 11-minute recording of Chiefs wide receiver Tyreek Hill and his now former fiancee, Crystal Espinal, talking about violence in their relationship has been aired, many fans are saying wow, this changes everything.
It does? That Hill, who didn’t know Espinal was taping him, denies ever hitting her or their son in what he thought was a private conversation is neither surprising nor exculpatory.
Abusers typically tell not only the police but friends, family, therapists, priests and even themselves they’ve never done anything wrong.
And if anything, the fact that Hill now says he didn’t hit punch or choke Espinal in 2014 makes him look worse rather than better. He pleaded guilty to those charges, publicly apologized, went through extensive therapy and declared himself reformed after probation. If he’s now back to saying that none of this ever happened, that’s not just a lie but a worrying one.
“I didn’t touch you in 2014,” he says on the tape. “And put that on everything I love, bro. That’s the real truth.”
That Espinal isn’t screaming at him that no, it’s not the truth, real or otherwise, is taken by some supporters as proof that he is innocent.
But why a woman who has been injured by him before and he’s threatening to hurt again might not do that should be obvious.
When she instead repeatedly asks him where her bruises came from if he never hit her, he doesn’t answer because there isn’t an answer that he likes well enough to repeat.
On Thursday, Espinal filed a petition in Johnson County seeking a paternity test for their newborn twins. She has full custody of them — they live with her — and she is asking for child support and only supervised visits for Hill. Her lawyer in the matter is legal counsel for SAFEHOME, a Johnson County group that supports survivors of domestic violence.
The NFL, meanwhile, seems ready to let Hill off with a brief suspension because the legal case against him isn’t going anywhere, but these things are still true:
Hill’s son was removed from his home after a child abuse investigation was launched. The Johnson County district attorney said the 3-year-old child had been hurt, but he didn’t have enough proof to prosecute.
On the tape, we heard Hill threaten the mother of his children with physical violence: “You need to be scared of me, too, dumb bitch.” He berates and belittles, calls her “bro” and “bitch” and of course, claims she ruined his life.
Denial of all wrongdoing is so standard in abuse cases that just a look at Thursday’s Star provides other examples, including that of Scott Hacker, the now former Parkville police officer charged with domestic violence after allegedly shooting his gun inside his home, throwing the woman who called 911 onto the couch, grabbing her by the throat and blaming her for “ending his career” by calling for help. Both before and after the cops arrived, he said he hadn’t shot the gun or touched her. But oops: A security camera in the living room apparently recorded the assault.
What Espinal was trying to get was the audio equivalent of that video.
If the NFL lets Hill back on the field this season, it will send the message that making threats and showing you’ve learned nothing from probation is no real problem, as long as you can run fast enough. The help he needs is not more denial, but just the opposite.
To the rest of you who are intent on seeing Hill as the victim, KCTV as a villain for not immediately releasing the full tape, and Espinal as a “manipulator” for wanting evidence to back her up in court, we could suggest some reading on the well-researched subject of abuse. But why, when you seem to prefer not to know?
Originally Posted by MahiMike:
I see that you're retired and surely remember when it was our only form of information. I still love the old paper medium myself. Something I can relax with in the tub or on the throne.
To this day I get the paper versions of many papers/magazines. There's just something about the nostalgia to it. That and the fact that I can get it wet and not worry about shorting out my $600 phone or getting electrocuted.
But even my 89 y/o dad had given the old papers a boot before he passed away. I went to visit him and looked around for the paper. I couldn't believe he used his laptop instead.
Oh well. It's a sad state IMO. And even worse that yet another piece of our culture has crumbled away.
Originally Posted by Hammock Parties:
Make your voice heard. You are the consumer. Newspapers exist to serve the public. When they begin to serve an agenda, it can, should and is affecting their business.
Second, you will want to contact Dan Schaub, the Corporate Director of Audience Development at McClatchy. He is easily reachable at dschaub@mcclatchy.com.
Originally Posted by :
The McClatchy Co. appears to have a deal to sell The Kansas City Star’s printing plant for about $32 million, about 15 percent of what it cost to construct the plant before it opened in 2006.
Originally Posted by :
:: The red ink continues to flow, with McClatchy reporting a net loss of $42 million for the first three months of 2019, or $5.34 per share of stock. In the first quarter of 2018, the company reported a net loss of $38.9 million, of $5.04 per share.
:: For the first time since it embarked on its transition from print to digital, digital-only advertising revenue was down — down by 5.2 percent against the first quarter of 2018. McClatchy CEO Craig Forman attributed the dip to a “softer news cycle” in the first quarter of this year and “a strategic tightening of website paywalls.”
:: Total advertising revenue was $85.2 million, down 14.7% compared to the first quarter of 2018.
Originally Posted by RetiredSeniorChief:
Printed newspapers are a 15th century invention that is going the way of the 8-track tape.
Sadly this is correct.
My entire family on my father's side all worked as newspaper pressmen from the early 1900's, myself included. It was a wonderful business at the time. :-) [Reply]
Originally Posted by scho63:
Sadly this is correct.
My entire family on my father's side all worked as newspaper pressmen from the early 1900's, myself included. It was a wonderful business at the time. :-)
I had a life in print publishing and got out in the 90s. I’m honestly sort of surprised print has hung around this long. Most don’t realize what an impact Craigslist had on newspapers and the importance of classified ads to the bottom line. The papers were literally printing money.
Now you have to have content that people can’t get in other places or a print format that is evergreen or tailored towards a higher-end customer who doesn’t mind paying $15-$20 for a magazine because of the niche it serves.
It can be done (transition to digital). High-quality content that is well edited and you can’t readily get by putting in a search term into Google. The Athletic and Wall Street Journal are two that come to mind that have pulled it off but I’m sure there are others I’m not remembering right now. [Reply]
None of these places can pay anyone shit. The KC Star was paying a bunch of older writers 70-80 grand and they all got laid off and replaced with kids making 30k.
We're going to be left with media monopolies in the future. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Hammock Parties:
The Athletic isn't even pulling it off well.
They fired a bunch of staff.
None of these places can pay anyone shit. The KC Star was paying a bunch of older writers 70-80 grand and they all got laid off and replaced with kids making 30k.
We're going to be left with media monopolies in the future.
I wistfully think about days when I could read a newspaper and not know the personal opinion of the person who wrote the article. Most news today is really amateurish and biased and uses poor grammar to boot, and I find it sad.
But then I wonder if it was always that way, other than the grammar. There were fewer media voices back when newspapers and the three major networks ran the show, which meant that there was more potential for powerful people to control the stories. We just may not have known it, because they were more subtle than the amateurs who are running the show today.
Democratization of the news is a good thing in theory, but in practice it means that we have to wade through a lot of bad journalism to find the truth. The Star at some point became stuff to wade through, rather than rely on. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
I wistfully think about days when I could read a newspaper and not know the personal opinion of the person who wrote the article. Most news today is really amateurish and biased and uses poor grammar to boot, and I find it sad.
But then I wonder if it was always that way, other than the grammar. There were fewer media voices back when newspapers and the three major networks ran the show, which meant that there was more potential for powerful people to control the stories. We just may not have known it, because they were more subtle than the amateurs who are running the show today.
Democratization of the news is a good thing in theory, but in practice it means that we have to wade through a lot of bad journalism to find the truth. The Star at some point became stuff to wade through, rather than rely on.
As soon as "clickbait" became a thing, it was bound to happen.
The internet pretty much killed the days where you could read a newspaper and just kinda chill out.
I wonder who fired the first shot in that war. Be interesting to read a history of online portals and who started the trend of being annoying for attention. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Hammock Parties:
As soon as "clickbait" became a thing, it was bound to happen.
The internet pretty much killed the days where you could read a newspaper and just kinda chill out.
I wonder who fired the first shot in that war. Be interesting to read a history of online portals and who started the trend of being annoying for attention.
I'm kind of amazed that sites like CNN have clickbait ads on their home page. Is the revenue really worth completely undermining their credibility? Apparently it is. But jeez, their money home page has links to "stories" that are blatantly fraudulent. Right now, I see "paid partner content" on the CNN money page that has the headline, "Beginners guide shows how to turn $4,600 into $460,164 trading options". And I'm supposed to find CNN credible?
But yeah, it'd be interesting to trace back and see where this decline started, and why. [Reply]
