We Respect Your Privacy, Whoever We Are

[BPSCG]

Link (http://www.sltrib.com/ci_5857837)

Jazz guard Derek Fisher, who left the team before Game 1 of the Western Conference semifinals, has been dealing with the discovery of a tumor between the eye and brain of his less than year-old daughter, The Salt Lake Tribune has learned.

Fisher was flying back to Salt Lake City and was placed on the active roster for Game 2 against the Golden State Warriors. The veteran guard was not expected to arrive in time for tipoff but all indications were that he would play.

The Jazz had excused Fisher for personal reasons from Monday's Game 1, Tuesday's practice and Wednesday's shootaround. Sources told the Tribune about Fisher's daughter's medical situation on condition of anonymity to respect Fisher's privacy.

Huh? :confused:

So if I reveal deeply personal information about you and your family to the press, it's respecting your privacy as long as I remain anonymous?

Maybe someone should publish the name, address, and phone number of the person who gave the Tribune the story. Anonymously, of course, to protect the source's privacy.

[Dr Adequate]

Oh, OK, the whole world has gone completely insane.

Fortunately I am a cynic and was prepared for this development.

[Kerberos]

Oh, OK, the whole world has gone completely insane.

Fortunately I am a cynic and was prepared for this development.

[cynic hat]I'm not sure that it actually qualifies as a "development".[/cynic hat]

[The Great Hairy One]

I'm constantly amazed at what the media will and won't publish. And their seemingly completely callous disregard for people.

Cheers,
TGHO

[Lothian]

Maybe someone should publish the name, address, and phone number of the person who gave the Tribune the story. Anonymously, of course, to protect the source's privacy To offer a defence for the source.

Could it mean the source said. “Look we know there might be speculation as to the club’s 'personal reasons' statement. Derek Fisher’s son is ill and that isI why he is missing games and training. We would rather you didn’t bring the subject up to protect Derek and his family at this time.”

In that case the paper would be the scumbags, which wouldn’t be the first time for the press.

[Beerina]

So, you suspect it was "Well, off the record, she's got this tumor thingie, but we really should respect their privacy, right?"

"Right!"

Reminds me of that scene in Patton where the press says to him, "Wouldn't you say that Germans joined the Nazi party the same way Americans joined the Republicans or Democrats?"

"Yeah, that's about it."

(Press looks around at each other smirking)

(Next scene: Headline: Patton Likens Repulicans and Democrats to Nazis!)

[Lothian]

So, you suspect it was "Well, off the record, she's got this tumor thingie, but we really should respect their privacy, right?"
BPSCG was suggesting (I think) that it was the source that wanted anonymity and that their name should be plastered over the papers. I am just presenting the possibility that rather than being a gossipmonger the source may have had good intentions. The article is not clear.

[Darat]

Link (http://www.sltrib.com/ci_5857837)
Huh? :confused:

So if I reveal deeply personal information about you and your family to the press, it's respecting your privacy as long as I remain anonymous?

Maybe someone should publish the name, address, and phone number of the person who gave the Tribune the story. Anonymously, of course, to protect the source's privacy.

As presented I have to agree with you Osama, it seems to be a rather cowardly thing to have done however as other's such as George W. above points out it may not be the source that acted in a despicable manner.

[Katana]

To offer a defence for the source.

Could it mean the source said. “Look we know there might be speculation as to the club’s 'personal reasons' statement. Derek Fisher’s son is ill and that isI why he is missing games and training. We would rather you didn’t bring the subject up to protect Derek and his family at this time.”

In that case the paper would be the scumbags, which wouldn’t be the first time for the press.


Except that the article in the OP says a lot more than that.

"...the discovery of a tumor between the eye and brain of his less than year-old daughter..." is very different than simply disclosing that it is his child who is ill and asking for respect of his and his family's privacy.

[Darth Rotor]

Link (http://www.sltrib.com/ci_5857837)
Huh? :confused:

So if I reveal deeply personal information about you and your family to the press, it's respecting your privacy as long as I remain anonymous?

Maybe someone should publish the name, address, and phone number of the person who gave the Tribune the story. Anonymously, of course, to protect the source's privacy.
There are some people who insist on their private information remaining private. Others share their drama. Still others get seduced into thinking that anyone in the media, in this day and age, is in some way their ally or friend.

That last is an error that only tends to be learned the hard way, when a betrayal of trust occurs.

Moral of the story: unless you want to see it in print, don't ever tell anyone in the press, or who routinely talks to, nay, gossips with, the press.

DR

[brodski]

As presented I have to agree with you Osama, it seems to be a rather cowardly thing to have done however as other's such as George W. above points out it may not be the source that acted in a despicable manner.

Yeah, that’s just the sort of thing I would expect you to say, Baroness Thatcher, you were wrong in ’84, and you’re wrong now!

[ponderingturtle]

Well of course the source wanted privacy, as this could very well be an illegal release of confidential patient information, and have serious consequences for the source.

[Katana]

Well of course the source wanted privacy, as this could very well be an illegal release of confidential patient information, and have serious consequences for the source.


Yes. It would appear that it is that person's privacy alone that was respected here.

[BPSCG]

Well of course the source wanted privacy, as this could very well be an illegal release of confidential patient information, and have serious consequences for the source.

Yes. It would appear that it is that person's privacy alone that was respected here.That was my initial reaction. But DR's post suggests the possibility that it was a family member who gave the information to someone in the press and asked the press to respect the family's privacy by not publishing it. I think that's certainly a possibility, maybe even a more likely possibility. I can't imagine a doctor giving the press information like that without the family's approval; I can very much imagine a naive family member doing it and asking the press not to publish it.

[Katana]

That was my initial reaction. But DR's post suggests the possibility that it was a family member who gave the information to someone in the press and asked the press to respect the family's privacy by not publishing it. I think that's certainly a possibility, maybe even a more likely possibility. I can't imagine a doctor giving the press information like that without the family's approval; I can very much imagine a naive family member doing it and asking the press not to publish it.


I don't buy it for these reasons:

Except that the article in the OP says a lot more than that.

"...the discovery of a tumor between the eye and brain of his less than year-old daughter..." is very different than simply disclosing that it is his child who is ill and asking for respect of his and his family's privacy.


Call me cynical. ;)

[gumboot]

Well, that could just be press embellishment...

Call me crazy, but any time I read anything in a newspaper, I allow the possibility that the journalist in question simply made the entire story up.

Frankly if I saw this in the press I'd allow for the possibility that "Jazz guard Derek Fisher" doesn't even exist.

What the [rule8] is a "Jazz guard" by the way? Does he protect the instruments while the rest of the band are drinking at the bar?

-Gumboot

[Katana]

Well, that could just be press embellishment...

Call me crazy, but any time I read anything in a newspaper, I allow the possibility that the journalist in question simply made the entire story up.

Frankly if I saw this in the press I'd allow for the possibility that "Jazz guard Derek Fisher" doesn't even exist.

What the [rule8] is a "Jazz guard" by the way? Does he protect the instruments while the rest of the band are drinking at the bar?

-Gumboot


If you're referring to my post, it wasn't embellishment. The player ultimately confirmed that his daughter has a cancerous growth, what is called a retinoblastoma, in one of her eyes.

[BPSCG]

What the [rule8] is a "Jazz guard" by the way? Does he protect the instruments while the rest of the band are drinking at the bar?

-GumbootThe Utah Jazz is a National Basketball Association team.

[Snide]

Just between you and me, Connie Chung must be proud.

[slingblade]

They're both wrong, the source and the press. The source obviously had at least a clue it might be a private matter, "to respect Fisher's privacy," so even sharing it with his grandma would have violated that. Moron.

And the press obviously knew it was considered a private matter, but that pesky "public's need/right to know" thing just jumped in the way and ate what little grey matter they had left.

Things Which, In Hindsight, I'm Now Grateful For, #2: I didn't become a reporter.

[Zep]

Dealing with the Media, Rule #1: THEY LIE! THEY MAKE STUFF UP TO GET A STORY!
Dealing with the Media, Rule #2: If it isn't interesting enough, see Rule #1.
Dealing with the Media, Rule #3: The media scrum is the best place to get stuff to feed Rule #2.

[BPSCG]

Former NFL rushing champion Ricky Williams tested positive again for marijuana last month, which will delay his return to the league until at least September, a person familiar with the case said Friday.

Williams sought to end a one-year drug suspension last month when he asked to rejoin the Miami Dolphins. But following the positive drug test, clinicians in the NFL's substance abuse program advised commissioner Roger Goodell to delay reinstatement, the person close to the case said. The person spoke on condition of anonymity because of the confidential nature of the testing program.
Link (http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ap-rickywilliamssuspension&prov=ap&type=lgns)

I guess the rule is, it's okay for you to give confidential information about someone else to the press, and it's okay for the press to print it, as long as you tell the press not to print your name.