Naval official rejects Mid's appeal

Bill0510
Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:42:06 +0000

No particular chain jerking on this Friday.
Just curious as to why Moonmaid didn’t think he sh/ repay. WPs assessement seems to make a bit more sense than MM. That is, EVERYBODY at the Academy [as in most circumstances] thinks they work hard and/or are doing the best they can do. Utilizing that standard, most people who leave the Academy under earlier than expected circumstances would not have to pay. The point is not whether he was working hard or not; the point is that he did not pass the standard. He failed, thus he owes the money.

WPs point, however, carries out the maxim that no good deeds go unpunished. The Navy could have [and probably sh ould have] failed him immediately after failing the PRT. But, the “NAVY” is really just government employees trying to do their job. So, the conversation goes, lets give the guy another chance. [How many would be complaining, for example, if it were their child who, in fact, was failed after just one try for only missing by 20-seconds. The American public likes to give everbody a second, anad third, and twelfth chance after all.] Well, he’s trying hard, let’s give him another chance. Until, NOW, we get blamed for not failing him immediately. Still, he was permitted to stay under failing circumstances, so I would probably have some sympathy for that argument.

I don’t know the specific reasons the Navy won’t accept him as an officer other than, perhaps . . . just guessing here, that grants him something he hasn’t earned.

Re: the press. People, as was discussed earlier this year, read into press accounts exactly what they want to read into them. [Studies referenced earlier this year support this notion.]
Thus, a simple story about a mid having to repay a debt is read by PM as a press effort to make the reader feel sorry for this poor midshipman. I did not read the story w/ a fine-toothed comb, but I did not get that impression at all. [Similar to those who bashed the press in these forums about a month ago over its coverage of some other slightly negative story about an Academy. Was it the cheating scandal at USAFA? It seems that any story written about a negative occurrence at an Academy is “biased.”]

I am simply curious about how or why some thought this story was written with bias? Give an example of a sentence that is written with bias. I would love to see how those who are so critical of the press would write this story–without bias–if given the chance.

So . . . no chain jerking. Just asking a question which, like so many other questions, nobody is prepared to answer.