This sickens me

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business...ing-records/a0Eqoz6RUYORFhT0T0j0EO/story.html

I read most of it & skimmed through the bottom. They should mention where the rest of that money goes. If it makes Beckett look bad then oh well. The media has a J-O-B to get that info & let the people know

This sickens me worse. http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/22/world/europe/uk-london-attack/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

All this just my opinion:

Unfortunately for the most part, the media no longer fulfills the crucial role it has historically played in this country. No matter your political leanings, we should all be concerned when the majority of the main-stream media become cheerleaders for an administration rather than fulfilling its adversarial role. That is more than unfortunate, it's dangerous and that's what I see currently going on. From that perspective, not investigating charities is a relatively minor short-coming. So it's fallen to individuals to be news gatherers and editors; and regarding charities the point I'm making is now the responsibility for checking out charities falls upon individuals. For all the crap on the internet, it does provide an avenue to help individuals do both. There is more news information on the net than can be read and sites like http://www.charitynavigator.org/ are very useful to find out just how much money charities spend on their stated purpose, as opposed to enriching individuals or fundraising.

BTW, the most disgusting example in the linked story was the A-Rod Family Foundation, which reportedly gave 1% of its proceeds to charity in its first year and then stopped reporting to the IRS. So any clueless individual contributing to this piece of sh!t not only threw their money away but if they reported the contribution as a charitable one on their taxes, they are potentially in trouble with the IRS.

[rant] Its not for anyone to decide how another person should spend their money and I usually refrain from doing so. But I just don't understand people like A-Rod. He became a pro baseball player in 1993 and as the top pick that year I'm sure endorsed a nice bonus check. I don't know how much more he was paid by the Mariners, but from 2001 through 2012 by my calculations the Rangers and Yankees have paid him $329,000,000. (More than $27,400,000 per year.) Even after paying taxes and taking care of his extended family, why couldn't he set up a charity that contributes 100% to whatever cause(s) with him paying the employees and for fund raising out of his pocket? Imagine a charity which could honestly boast, "100% of your contribution goes to ______." Even if he's mostly in it for the PR, imagine the PR! [/rant]

I wholeheartedly agree with this. Too much pressure to make a profit instead of investigating and reporting accurate information. Also there seems to be an issue in America with people being unable to discern what is a News agency and what is just a bunch of commentary. We might not have overreacted and started two wars or allowed the Patriot act to become law because of an act of terrorism, if we still had a strong and well respected media.

But I also put blame on the American people for part of this, they are getting what they want. I was just commenting to my wife the other day while we were standing in the checkout line at the local market that years ago you would see magazines like Life, Newsweek, Time and other news magazines lining the checkouts. Now its all about self absorption, gotta know what the person who is famous for being famous is doing. Too many uniformed people who don't seem to want to know what's going on and take action.

Sad really, my grandchildren are going to live in a much different world than I have known.

Sorry to hear about your Son. It must be very challenging.

glad they managed to sort it out.

It's not only your opinion.
It's the correct opinion, because it's factual.