Agree with much of what you say...
Those two skippers sailed the match of their careers.
Absolutely.
That was one heck of a match up. And when it came to crunch time the veteran team team pulled it out.
Totally.
But -
the article took the high road and avoided mentioning the conflict
I don't get.
I don't mean in any way to diminish the significance and worthiness of the victory. L&O are clearly insanely talented competitors. I have no judgment at all to make at all about the rights or wrongs of the protest. But the
report is a different matter - I just think it's reasonable to expect those who use the appearance of being a reliable news source to make money to tell us the whole story.
When - as you said - they have "
avoided mentioning the conflict", when we know there was a conflict, and have chosen to tell a story we know has two sides through the eyes of only a single protagonist, I think it's reasonable to ask - why on earth did they do that? Why did they chose not to tell us part of the story? Why is this the "high road"? Why
haven't they shown us the "big picture".
I completely agree with you that "
it would be a shame to only highlight the off the water confrontation". I don't want them to do that. I don't expect them to do that. If they had used Jill Nickerson's report instead of Charlie's then I agree that would likely be the result. That would also be a very bad idea. But it is a very false dichotomy to suggest that the only alternatives are to completely ignore the conflict or to only talk about the conflict. I just want them to report what they know about what actually happened.
Ok, I'll get off my soapbox. Not looking for an argument really. It's late. Maybe it'll look different in the morning.
