AllWeatherFan said:Here, in the first two paragraphs of Story #1, is the "Missoulian's Big Lie:"
"As the fledgling administration of University of Montana President Royce Engstrom struggled to deal with escalating reports of assault and sexual attacks involving students, others on campus fought just as hard to damp down the severity of the situation.
Then-football coach Robin Pflugrad personally apologized to Engstrom when two Grizzlies players were tased at a party last fall – but blamed Missoula police for exacerbating the situation."
What exactly does paragraph #1 (the lead) have to do with paragraph #2 (presumably an example of the "situation" involving "assault and sexual attacks")?
The answer? They are completely separate and unrelated. One has nothing to do with the other. Yet the Missoulian chooses to perpetuate this Big Lie by pretending that "sexual assault" and the "Taser incident" are two sides of the same coin, or two edges of the same sword, whatever analogy you're most comfortable using.
And then the "gang rape" term gets thrown in (yet again) for dramatic effect.
It's wrong. It's incompetent. It's deceptive and deceitful. And it's completely on the Missoulian, its editors and publisher. It's the Big Lie. And the Big Lie is perpetuated for one reason and one reason only: a desperate maneuver to generate readership.
As the editorial appearing in Monday's paper stated, individuals who committed rape or sexual assault must be held accountable. But individuals performing such heinous acts to not a "culture" make, no matter how hard the paper tries to manufacture one.
What I don't get is the assertion that the sexual assault problem "centers" on Grizzly football. There may very well be a problem with rape in Missoula and at UM, but I can't figure out how it "centers" on Grizzly football. It seems the one documented incident was handled pretty quickly. Why is there no reporting on the other incidents?