Things in news stories that bug you

[NoSoup4U]

There is almost always much more to the story than the simple write-up you get. I suspect that when you know the whole story relatively few of these cases would really upset you so much. The crux of the McD case was that they knew that these hoaxes were taking place over and over at their stores and didn't do anything to warn their managers. A simple memo that went to all stores telling them to hang up on this guy might well have stopped the whole thing.

McDonalds tried to conceal and deny the prior cases. Eventually they were sanctioned by the judge for lying about what they knew to him and the other attorneys. They wound up turning over the material on prior cases just a few days before the trial started (this fact was presented to the jury). They also refused to provide the information on past cases to criminal prosecutors, hindering the case against the guy who ran the hoax in the first place.

They eventually admitted that their head of security suggested that they warn all the stores, but that they didn't actualy do it. They also looked like the classic big company with so many lawyers at the table that one of them actually objected to a question posed by another defense attorney, which actually caused members of the jury to laugh at them (as reported in the papers).

In their defense phase, one of the witnesses (the janitor) testified that the statement the lawyers provided on his behalf was false and that he couldn't read or write. They admitted that they changed the victim's timecard in an attempt to get the case classified as worker's comp and the lawsuit thrown out (she wasn't actually working at the time this all went down). They also put on a psychologist who said that the victim had "grown in some ways" as a result of the hoax. I'm guessing that the jury didn't much buy that line of reasoning.

There was also something in the papers about detectives hired by McDonalds that threatened and intimidated witnesses and that the state was considering criminal charges against the detective. I don't know if the jury heard about that or not.

So you have the company hiding the information of the prior cases as hard as they can, eventually rising to the point where they were sanctioned by the judge (this is not a minor deal), you have them admitting that they falsified her timesheet to try to get the case thrown out (had she been on the clock, she would have been limited to workers comp) and claiming that she was actually better off. Add to this a phalanx of lawyers presenting mixed messages and a small town jury looking to find someone to pay for what happened, and the verdict is a lot easier to understand. The jury was angry at McDonalds and it appears to me that they had pretty good reason to be.

[NoSoup4U]

I should have included more primary sources, but I was lazy.

Hoax warnings inadequate
Exec didn't know of prior hoaxes
McD's officials testify
McDonalds opens defense: some testimony may have backfired
McDonald's expert: Hoax helped victim grow after sexual assault

[daryn]

nice post nosoup.

you always assume there's more to it, but i never really thought about it beyond that. the first reaction is just OMFG SHE GOT HOW MANY MILLIONS??

[JJSCOTT2]

Disclaimer: I don't necessarily intend to support or not-support Bill O'Reilly with this post.

The recent ridiculous news stories that have accused O'Reilly of calling soldiers that disagree with the war in Iraq "phony soldiers" has seriously made me tilt harder than anything ever.

It seems like seriously none of these media sources gives ONE FLYING F*** about what he actually said, because it makes a better story to just report what they wish he had said. It's ridiculous.

[El Diablo]

Iron,

"Somebody give this guy the Glengarry leads already. McDonald's manager deserves third prize."

Whenever someone bitches at me for deleting some stupid joke response in EDF, I will point them to your response illustrating how we are all for funny responses, AS LONG AS THEY ARE ACTUALLY FUNNY.

Nice work.

[El Diablo]

NS,

Excellent post, thanks. Now if you can find some stuff that explains how the f the manager got a verdict for $1M!!!!

[NoSoup4U]

[ QUOTE ]
NS,

Excellent post, thanks. Now if you can find some stuff that explains how the f the manager got a verdict for $1M!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

The short version is that they were convicted of a crime (and fired) and they convinced the jury that had McDonalds not hidden the evidence that this had happened over and over in other stores, they would not have been convicted or fired. I do agree with you that this was a much weaker case. Had it been a separate trial, they would likely have lost -- I think they benefited from the pairing of the two cases together.

[Elevens]

[ QUOTE ]
Disclaimer: I don't necessarily intend to support or not-support Bill O'Reilly with this post.

The recent ridiculous news stories that have accused O'Reilly of calling soldiers that disagree with the war in Iraq "phony soldiers" has seriously made me tilt harder than anything ever.

It seems like seriously none of these media sources gives ONE FLYING F*** about what he actually said, because it makes a better story to just report what they wish he had said. It's ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're confusing two things. Rush Limbaugh is the one being attacked for saying the "phony soldiers" comment. Bill O'Reilly defended him.

Bill O'Reilly was being attacked for a different comment about black patrons in a black restaurant that was taken out of context, too.

[guids]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Disclaimer: I don't necessarily intend to support or not-support Bill O'Reilly with this post.

The recent ridiculous news stories that have accused O'Reilly of calling soldiers that disagree with the war in Iraq "phony soldiers" has seriously made me tilt harder than anything ever.

It seems like seriously none of these media sources gives ONE FLYING F*** about what he actually said, because it makes a better story to just report what they wish he had said. It's ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're confusing two things. Rush Limbaugh is the one being attacked for saying the "phony soldiers" comment. Bill O'Reilly defended him.

Bill O'Reilly was being attacked for a different comment about black patrons in a black restaurant that was taken out of context, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

no, he is not confusing anything. Limbaugh called a rash of people who posed as soldiers (officiating weddings etc), as phony soldiers, the media took it out of context, O reilly defended Rush saying basically - wtf do you want, there are people running around that have never been in the military and are claiming they are, rush said nothing wrong in saying they are phony soldiers - the left wing media doesnt know how to read/listen and just completely spun everything saying that they were calling all soldiers etc phony.

On a seperate issue, O reilly went to some sould food restuarant up in new york, and said something a long the lines of "there was no MFing, no thugs, etc". Depending on how you take it, it was somewhat racist, but I heard the clip and it was more of a satire type comment than anything imo, ie if went to a chinese restaurant and said "weird, there was no ching chongy types, or panties in vending machines..who woulda thunk that these stereotypes arent true"

[Elevens]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Disclaimer: I don't necessarily intend to support or not-support Bill O'Reilly with this post.

The recent ridiculous news stories that have accused O'Reilly of calling soldiers that disagree with the war in Iraq "phony soldiers" has seriously made me tilt harder than anything ever.

It seems like seriously none of these media sources gives ONE FLYING F*** about what he actually said, because it makes a better story to just report what they wish he had said. It's ridiculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're confusing two things. Rush Limbaugh is the one being attacked for saying the "phony soldiers" comment. Bill O'Reilly defended him.

Bill O'Reilly was being attacked for a different comment about black patrons in a black restaurant that was taken out of context, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

no, he is not confusing anything. Limbaugh called a rash of people who posed as soldiers (officiating weddings etc), as phony soldiers, the media took it out of context, O reilly defended Rush saying basically - wtf do you want, there are people running around that have never been in the military and are claiming they are, rush said nothing wrong in saying they are phony soldiers - the left wing media doesnt know how to read/listen and just completely spun everything saying that they were calling all soldiers etc phony.

On a seperate issue, O reilly went to some sould food restuarant up in new york, and said something a long the lines of "there was no MFing, no thugs, etc". Depending on how you take it, it was somewhat racist, but I heard the clip and it was more of a satire type comment than anything imo, ie if went to a chinese restaurant and said "weird, there was no ching chongy types, or panties in vending machines..who woulda thunk that these stereotypes arent true"

[/ QUOTE ]

Guids,

Please reread my post. That's pretty much what I said, except, yes, he IS confusing the two issues.