FutaKaNina wrote:Most of the reports printed and broadcast about his death showed enough respect for his loved ones and colleagues to not go into detail about the rectal activity part.
Why am I not surprised Fox News would resort to this...
pacifico falafoxy wrote:His story was updated in the news yesterday. He passed away in late December.
He was with a guy when he died supposedly having sex in Days Inn hotel in Cali.
He was a respected news anchor in LA but he had M2M extra marital affair and drug usage behind a wife and a daughter.
What was he thinking?
FutaKaNina wrote:Most of the reports printed and broadcast about his death showed enough respect for his loved ones and colleagues to not go into detail about the rectal activity part.
Why am I not surprised Fox News would resort to this...
micoexpress5 wrote:Someone put a bottle in his rectum n had to undergo surgery >>
GabrielTheHunk wrote:micoexpress5 wrote:Someone put a bottle in his rectum n had to undergo surgery >>
This is very common knowledge and does not need pontificating in news articles for “educational” purposes. Even morons know this. It’s also common sense that one will get in trouble if s/he engages in extra-marital affairs, which is why EVERYBODY who engages in it it tries to hide it.
There is absolutely no “educational” value for salacious reporting, except for generating base-level, gossipy public interest and ratings.
GabrielTheHunk wrote:FutaKaNina wrote:Most of the reports printed and broadcast about his death showed enough respect for his loved ones and colleagues to not go into detail about the rectal activity part.
Why am I not surprised Fox News would resort to this...
We didn’t have to read on the news about the male encounter part; anybody interested in the details of the autopsy could access it from the LA Coroner’s Office.
Fox could have empathized with the family’s grief and have avoided putting them in a scandalous light by allowing the family to deal with the matter privately. After all, the dead guy’s role was simply to deliver the news, while he spent the non-TV-covered part of his life doing a lot of public service and charity work on the side. He was not an entertainment celebrity nor was he an attention wh.re.
Avoiding the all-out salacious reporting might not have sparked the news ratings, but that would have been the more humane thing for the reporter to do.
Angela wrote:We didn’t have to read on the news about the male encounter part; anybody interested in the details of the autopsy could access it from the LA Coroner’s Office.
Fox could have empathized with the family’s grief and have avoided putting them in a scandalous light by allowing the family to deal with the matter privately. After all, the dead guy’s role was simply to deliver the news, while he spent the non-TV-covered part of his life doing a lot of public service and charity work on the side. He was not an entertainment celebrity nor was he an attention wh.re.
Avoiding the all-out salacious reporting might not have sparked the news ratings, but that would have been the more humane thing for the reporter to do.
The Alchemist wrote:So who the hell is this guy? Can we just name him
Angela wrote:GabrielTheHunk wrote:FutaKaNina wrote:Most of the reports printed and broadcast about his death showed enough respect for his loved ones and colleagues to not go into detail about the rectal activity part.
Why am I not surprised Fox News would resort to this...
We didn’t have to read on the news about the male encounter part; anybody interested in the details of the autopsy could access it from the LA Coroner’s Office.
Fox could have empathized with the family’s grief and have avoided putting them in a scandalous light by allowing the family to deal with the matter privately. After all, the dead guy’s role was simply to deliver the news, while he spent the non-TV-covered part of his life doing a lot of public service and charity work on the side. He was not an entertainment celebrity nor was he an attention wh.re.
Avoiding the all-out salacious reporting might not have sparked the news ratings, but that would have been the more humane thing for the reporter to do.
"We didn’t have to read on the news about the male encounter part; anybody interested in the details of the autopsy could access it from the LA Coroner’s Office.
Fox could have empathized with the family’s grief and have avoided putting them in a scandalous light by allowing the family to deal with the matter privately. After all, the dead guy’s role was simply to deliver the news, while he spent the non-TV-covered part of his life doing a lot of public service and charity work on the side. He was not an entertainment celebrity nor was he an attention wh.re.
Avoiding the all-out salacious reporting might not have sparked the news ratings, but that would have been the more humane thing for the reporter to do."
Why are you throwing shade at Fox News when they are actually reporting what had actually happened based on the police report? QUEERTY, a gay online site, is reporting the same. So do Variety, New York Post, and L.A. Times. Meanwhile, CNN chose to OMIT details of the cause of his death. Yup, CNN is only reporting what their "highly sensitive" readers want to hear. LOL.
TheK wrote:Angela wrote:We didn’t have to read on the news about the male encounter part; anybody interested in the details of the autopsy could access it from the LA Coroner’s Office.
Fox could have empathized with the family’s grief and have avoided putting them in a scandalous light by allowing the family to deal with the matter privately. After all, the dead guy’s role was simply to deliver the news, while he spent the non-TV-covered part of his life doing a lot of public service and charity work on the side. He was not an entertainment celebrity nor was he an attention wh.re.
Avoiding the all-out salacious reporting might not have sparked the news ratings, but that would have been the more humane thing for the reporter to do.
"We didn’t have to read on the news about the male encounter part; anybody interested in the details of the autopsy could access it from the LA Coroner’s Office.
Fox could have empathized with the family’s grief and have avoided putting them in a scandalous light by allowing the family to deal with the matter privately. After all, the dead guy’s role was simply to deliver the news, while he spent the non-TV-covered part of his life doing a lot of public service and charity work on the side. He was not an entertainment celebrity nor was he an attention wh.re.
Avoiding the all-out salacious reporting might not have sparked the news ratings, but that would have been the more humane thing for the reporter to do."
Why are you throwing shade at Fox News when they are actually reporting what had actually happened based on the police report? QUEERTY, a gay online site, is reporting the same. So do Variety, New York Post, and L.A. Times. Meanwhile, CNN chose to OMIT details of the cause of his death. Yup, CNN is only reporting what their "highly sensitive" readers want to hear. LOL.
Angela wrote:TheK wrote:Angela wrote:We didn’t have to read on the news about the male encounter part; anybody interested in the details of the autopsy could access it from the LA Coroner’s Office.
Fox could have empathized with the family’s grief and have avoided putting them in a scandalous light by allowing the family to deal with the matter privately. After all, the dead guy’s role was simply to deliver the news, while he spent the non-TV-covered part of his life doing a lot of public service and charity work on the side. He was not an entertainment celebrity nor was he an attention wh.re.
Avoiding the all-out salacious reporting might not have sparked the news ratings, but that would have been the more humane thing for the reporter to do.
"We didn’t have to read on the news about the male encounter part; anybody interested in the details of the autopsy could access it from the LA Coroner’s Office.
Fox could have empathized with the family’s grief and have avoided putting them in a scandalous light by allowing the family to deal with the matter privately. After all, the dead guy’s role was simply to deliver the news, while he spent the non-TV-covered part of his life doing a lot of public service and charity work on the side. He was not an entertainment celebrity nor was he an attention wh.re.
Avoiding the all-out salacious reporting might not have sparked the news ratings, but that would have been the more humane thing for the reporter to do."
Why are you throwing shade at Fox News when they are actually reporting what had actually happened based on the police report? QUEERTY, a gay online site, is reporting the same. So do Variety, New York Post, and L.A. Times. Meanwhile, CNN chose to OMIT details of the cause of his death. Yup, CNN is only reporting what their "highly sensitive" readers want to hear. LOL.
LOL I can tell how much you are paid... when you use CNN and FOX as a comparison. YOur day job sucks.
micoexpress5 wrote:Again truth hurts but being blind n just wait for another death of such kind is just outrageous .
Users browsing this forum: No registered users