My problem is with such news being used to elicit an emotional response within an article to which it’s not directly relevant. Whether it was used as a “major point” or not, its inclusion is still questionable. There was certainly quite a lot of focus on it, with a video included.

Just to clarify one more time: I don’t mind Stop The Cap reporting this news. I don’t mind the video being included. I just feel that such reports should be isolated from any article or story that pushes a political agenda. I find it especially distasteful when the topic is introduced in such an article at the end of a statement that outlines the business related challenges that the company is facing.

Even if you or I are not personally offended by something, there are valid reasons why someone else might be; there’s also quite reasonable cause for someone else to misconstrue the intention with which it was written. To my mind, it’s better to avoid this issue entirely than it is to risk alienation and the fighting of a battle that’s utterly unrelated to the war.

I’m done, though. The author responded to my point and I appreciate that, even if I still (respectfully) disagree. I’m still reading and I’m still thankful for the hard work it takes to bring many of these stories to our attention.

I appreciate the response. I still feel it would be better to talk about this tragedy in its own article, without any other agenda. It still has the air of politicising the event and its removal would have no effect on the fine points made in the article.

Susan – seems an extreme reaction, though clearly I understand why, given my earlier post. As for your other point, there are many people who have experienced horrendously poor service through Charter, whether you personally have or have not.

Uncle Ken – I would like to see where I questioned or even claimed to know the facts of the case. Bad press may be bad press, but there’s a world of difference between that which leads to genuine criticism of the company and that which is the result of a unique and shocking event to which the company is at best tangentially involved. Your suggestion is that it’s okay to use such news as part of a one-two punch combination in a piece that’s focused on the company’s failings. It’s not. When pushing your agenda, there are some things that are in poor taste no matter how much emotional weight they may appear your arguments.

I’m done, now.

“Beyond that horrific incident, Charter Cable has been irritating subscribers with a series of rate increases and annoying marketing campaigns across the country.”

After that, the article details the rate increases and other issues.

What you’d probably find even more appalling are some of the comments that were left on a few news outlet sites reporting the tragedy, where customers had zero sympathy for the employee and, in a few cases, suggested the attack was probably a result of bad picture quality and overpriced service. Yes, some people went there directly and openly.

I watch all of the video that I embed in stories, and they help tell the story that I don’t need to repeat in the article text, and I try and choose video that expresses the appropriate sentiment. I specifically chose that video out of about 15 options because I felt it represented the real-world feelings that need to be expressed about senseless violent attacks like this. Hearing the family members speak out represents that in ways I couldn’t begin to write, and that’s why I let them do the talking.

But I appreciate your personal feelings and concerns, and knew going in that I’d probably get a few comments similar to yours, as other websites that have reported on somewhat similar incidents also get concerned or negative comments from at least a few readers. I hope the clarification helps ease any concerns you might have that I don’t personally feel anger towards the alleged perpetrator and sadness and sympathy for the family.

Your lack of shame and respect for a former US Marine who proudly served his country and did the duty that was required of him, is disgusting. You and people like you are pigs.

I’ve had Charter cable for years and I’m not experiencing any of this crap you are spewing.

That aside, your adding his death into your review was the lowest thing I’ve ever seen in my life and people like you should be prosecuted for hate crimes.

Of course the question then is whether folks with basic cable abhor the rate increases enough to go OTA-only. If not, then apparently the service is worth it to them, despite the high prices.

While I agree that rate increases on service tiers that don’t get any feature upgrades is the wrong thing to do, you have to remember that Charter has to figure out some way to move toward being debt-free, otherwise it folds. The question at this point is whether it’s better to have overpriced cable service now and six months down the road, or somewhat reasonably priced service now and possibly no service in six months because Charter can’t keep the doors open.

Yeah, catch-22s suck.

“Beyond bankruptcy, Charter Cable continues to face bad press for providing poor service, hassling customers with aggressive telemarketing calls, dramatic rate increases, and in one shocking incident this week, a Charter Cable technician in Victorville, California was attacked and killed while on a service call.”

This statement seems to link the senseless murder of a cable worker with the poor management and service that customers have had to endure. While a complete non-sequitur, at its best, it seems to suggest the killing is an inconvenience to customers in the same way that rate hikes and telemarketing are; At its worst, it implies the incident was the result of poor corporate policies.

Neither is the case, and though this is clear from the remainder of the article, I’d strongly suggest you rework this paragraph which reads a little blasé about what is a tragic event.

As a final aside, while it’s good to acknowledge this event, it’s out-of-place in an article which otherwise serves to expose the shortcomings of Charter Cable. It’s not really relevant and appears as politicising this devastating news. It might be much better to push such an acknowledgement to a separate article without any secondary agenda.

AT&T is not much better in our area, though. Last week, two young guys showed up at my door, armed with a list AT&T customers who are not subscribing to UVerse. They implied this was a service call, (not a marketing call, oh no), to let folks know about a “new” service in the area. Considering that UVerse has been around for several months, and considering the misinformation about UVerse they were providing (not to mention that the community I live in is posted against door to door marketing), it would seem there’s not much to choose from when it comes to integrity with both companies.