Skimming through The Boston Globe’s most emailed articles, like I do whenever I’m bored, I came upon this heavily passed-around story: “Man pleads guilty in horse-sex case.†Hmm. What an interesting read.
But this AP article left much to my imagination – which isn’t always the wisest choice. Apparently a Seattle man died from “internal injuries†while having sex with a horse.
“The prosecutor’s office said no animal cruelty charges were filed because there was no evidence of injury to the horses.†An interesting quote.
So WHAT HAPPENED? Am I the only one who wants to know? How does one die from having sex with a horse?
No such details were offered.
I'm sitting here, slightly ashamed that I'm giving this story so much thought, wondering if the writer knew of the details of the death and didn’t write them in – and if the writer did know the details why didn’t he/she include them in the article?
The obvious answer, to me anyway, would be that the writer held back the information to keep from embarrassing James Michael Tait, 54, who was the cameraman for the unfortunate evening, or the family of the deceased Kenneth Pinyan.
Is it ethical to withhold information on how a person died? Is it even newsworthy? Perhaps this isn’t the best example to use on the topic – but it is the one that got me thinking about it.
If a person shoots themselves in the head is that ok to write about in a news story? What if they had an accident with a power tool? Or were eaten alive by a pack of rabid dogs? When does the way a person dies become newsworthy?
I don’t know the answers to the questions I’m throwing out there. But I do know that I wish I was given more information on how the heck Pinyan suffered internal injuries, even if it is just to satisfy my curiosity.
Anonymous (not verified) @ December 6, 2005 - 9:51am
Think about it, what do you think killed him. what wiuld have had to happen to the horse in order to inflict pain?
»