Disgusted and disappointed

AddThis

I am appalled by the tone of the article titled “UT freshman badly injured, hospitalized after collision,” which ran in Monday’s paper, because it resembles an opinion article, as it addresses the victim’s obligation as a cyclist to be “responsible[...] for their own visibility.” Your news articles should address the facts rather than speculate about the fault of either party. Although I recognize that the author also assigned potential blame to the motorist, it does not justify any commentary on the obligation of the cyclist because the driver of the cement truck did not sustain life-threatening, permanent injuries. I can only imagine how the cyclist’s family would react to this article, and I empathize with them and the girl injured. Additionally, because she may have to seek compensation in court, this article is tainting the jury pool. I have heard the story from several witnesses who conclude it was the fault of the motorist, a person not risking his or her life when attempting to get to his or her destination, and without evidence, your writers should keep their opinions and the opinions of interviewees to themselves. You should advise your reporter, Katrina Tollin, to abstain from issuing precautions and using incriminating language in articles intended to communicate news, which should only consist of raw facts. This article only further justifies my opinion that your newspaper does not properly articulate stories, and I will be encouraging my house, the 21st Street Co-op, to revoke our subscription.

Lindsay Pollock, Rhetoric and writing senior