From Media Notes in today's Post.
InstaPundit's Glenn Reynolds jabs the press over a case involving parents who refused to accept their daughter's failing grade:
"By now a lot of people have heard the story of the high school senior whose parents threatened to sue the teacher who – apparently quite properly – flunked her. Now this Arizona Republic editorial raises the question that has occurred to me: Why don't we know the names of those parents?
"'The girl's parents, who have done nothing to deserve the anonymity this and other reports afford them, have performed perhaps even a worse service than the district. Perhaps even worse than the lawyer. They've made clear to their daughter that failure is never her responsibility. And that is a terrible message for any parent to send.'
"Yeah, they don't deserve anonymity. Maybe the girl's a minor – but is there a general rule of never reporting a minor's name? I don't think so. And why not report the parents' names? They're not minors. Yeah, sure, that would get the daughter's name in public. But given that they threatened a lawsuit, well, that goes with the territory. I don't see why they should be cut a break here. In fact, the letter sent by lawyer Stan Massad seems to border on extortion, something that the Arizona Bar should perhaps look into . . . : 'Of course, all information regarding your background, your employment records, all of your class records, past and present, dealings with this and other students become relevant, should litigation be necessary.'
"Whether or not this constitutes a crime or a violation of legal ethics isn't for me to say – but anyone willing to threaten to make private facts public in order to get an action they desire from a public employee surely has no standing in demanding that his/her own privacy be respected. The press's bizarre incidents of over- and under-sensitivity baffle me."
Join the club, Insta man. |
