It's tweet bait. The media puts it out hoping some "un-enlightened" sports celeb, politician (especially if aligned in some remote way with Trump), celebrity in general, etc. puts 140 characters out than can be "crafted" into bashing ****. Now the person responding may be using it for their own devices (a representative from a conservative district strengthening their anti-homosexual bona fides, for example) but most things in put out by the media are not straight (no pun intended) reported, especially social issues; there is a narrative and an expected response baked in.
sure..all that..or in this case,,it is actually news.
I didn't say it was "Fake News;" My point is that an institution following the law, in this case Title IX, does not rise to the level of needing a story, it is only "reported" because of a particular motivation.
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-201404-title-ix.pdf
Page 5 clearly shows that discrimination in educational opportunities is unlawful and the institutions were reminded of the fact.
This story's purpose was to create a desired response, one which would allow further bashing of people who CAN'T overturn a FEDERAL Statute even if they wanted to do so.
Maybe you shouldn't have slept through 9th grade Civics...
You may be right about the purpose of this particular story, but come off it. The purpose of
all stories is not to push an agenda.
For example, despite the enlightened responses on this board, this is still a big deal to some people. Some people still feel they can't openly be themselves and may find value in stories like this. Some people may feel that their values are being threatened by situations like this and may want to stay informed about them.
You're view of "the media" is nice if you've set out to make it ok to just ignore what you don't like, but the truth is that stories get written for all kinds of reasons. Go ahead and write it all off as calculated to support an agenda, but I think you're making a mistake.
No mistake at all...You ever dealt with the "intrepid journalists" of the media? From Eldorado Canyon, the mission that bombed Libya (and where we lost 2 aircrew) in 1986 to 11 years in SOF to Iraq, I ran into a lot of media types. To the man and women, they all had in their mind (or their editor's mind and they were dutifully following orders) what story they were going to write BEFORE they wrote it and didn't care if they wrote something that put the US military further in harm's way; they had a narrative they were following and everything else be damned...When Bush pulled off that Air Force One flight to Baghdad on Thanksgiving 2003, they were seething that he fooled them and they didn't get to break the story before he arrived (oblivous that insurgent MANPADS (portable SAMs) had already downed one aircraft and "reporting" mission details early would have put everyone on the aircraft in danger).
Let's not forget Dan Rather's little forged Bush ANG memo...Of course, a brilliant mind like his couldn't figure out that in 1972, you typed in either Pica or Elite, not MS Word Times New Roman!
I value the truth, not something that is designed to rile up snowflakes that would be baffled by this:
[video=youtube;tyeJ55o3El0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyeJ55o3El0[/video]