This was an incredibly misleading (and rather sensationalistic) headline and subtitle. It strongly and inaccurately implies that this woman was applying for a job at the library, and that a library employee groped her. A better headline might have been, "Woman groped by craigslist scam artist" or "Penn Alum gropes woman at Van Pelt". The DP should issue an apology for this.

Stewart, why should the DP issue an apology because you choose to read (or mis-read) the story in a goofy way. The first sentence calls the alleged perpetrator "a man"; if it had been a library employee, it would have said, "a Penn employee" or "A Van Pelt Library employee". It doesn't. It doesn't even suggest that this guy was a libary employee. Three paragraphs later, the man is furhter described as someone who "claimed to be the CEO of a company called the Modelelite Modeling Agency". Again, not a hint of a tie to the library, except that the library is where this alleged incident took place. You suggest that the DP should have said "Penn Alum gropes woman at Van Pelt" -- but *that* would have been irresponsible. The article indicates it is not clear whether the accused actually is a Penn graduate or not. And the paper can't label the man as a "scam artist", as you suggest, until or unless that is proven or he pleads guilty. I imagine more facts will come to light as this story progresses, but it's the media's job not to describe something as fact unless it is, indeed, fact. The DP seems to have done that right here. Why you think the paper owes anyone an apology is beyond me.

An apology may be a bit much, I have to say, but otherwise I gotta disagree, Alan. The large text read, "Harassment alleged at Van Pelt Library: Woman who came to library for job interview says she was groped by potential employer" I work at the library, and two colleagues came up to me today and said they heard that a librarian got harrassed when she applied here for a job and asked if I knew who harrassed her. Worse than that, they were actually making guesses about who it might have been. The text of the article makes clear what actually happened, but judging from my experience today, the damage was still done. That's what happens when newspapers try to lure you in with sensationalistic headlines. Show that headline and the subhead to ANYBODY, and ask them what the article is about. Nobody in their right mind is going to say, "well, it must be about a person who has nothing to do with the library coming to the library to apply for a non-library-related job, and a person who isn't affiliated in any way with the library groped her." The DP knows that perfectly well, and it was a poor editorial decision on somebody's part, pure and simple.

Definitely agree, this headline is very misleading. THIS is how rumors get started. I suggest the DP simply change the headline online, not sure apology is needed.

At the very least the DP owes Carton Rogers and the rest of the library system employees an explanation, if not an outright apology. I expect misleading headlines like this from Rupert Murdoch and the NY Post. I thought the DP had higher journalistic standards. Oh but I forgot that this is the same rag that gave us Steven Glass.

this is pretty bad. saying that the woman "came to library for [a] job interview" clearly implies that the job was at the library. it's asking a lot on the part of the reader to avoid assuming as much and think instead that "perhaps it was a scam artist who was using the library as a place to pretend to interview people whom he would later victimize.

Are you people stupid? How could you possibly infer from the headline that a Penn employee was responsible? The only major error in this story is that it says, "Endy persisted in leaving messages on her cell phone", when it should say "Devine".

[QUOTE id="56ca626e-d62a-473c-8fb9-f01f75f50833"]Are you people stupid? How could you possibly infer from the headline that a Penn employee was responsible? The only major error in this story is that it says, "Endy persisted in leaving messages on her cell phone", when it should say "Devine".[/QUOTE] I can't stand people who make themselves feel good by calling others stupid. How childish. Winning a debate is about ideas. Debasing it by name-calling is the action of someone who doesn't have enough ideas to prove his or her point.

Funny, because that doesn't address the fact that I'm kinda right. There's really no way someone could infer that a Penn employee is suspected. Unless they believe that Van Pelt is the exclusive domain of employees. If you'd like to get off your horse, there are facts down here amongst the peons. [QUOTE id="56ca626e-d62a-473c-8fb9-f01f75f50833"]Are you people stupid? How could you possibly infer from the headline that a Penn employee was responsible? The only major error in this story is that it says, "Endy persisted in leaving messages on her cell phone", when it should say "Devine".[/QUOTE]

I confess, I must be stupid. I was skimming the DP website, saw this headline, and assumed that a library employee was harassing either a student or another employee. The website gives only the headline, "Harassment alleged at Van Pelt Library," and without following the link I would have been left with an impression that is far from the truth. A headline should introduce us to a story, and should not give a false impression that needs to be corrected in the body.

Maybe it depends on who the reader assumes is using the library. Van Pelt library is a semi-public space. Maybe a lot of readers forget that the General Public is in and out of there, not just Penn students and employees. If you forget that Van Pelt is a semi-public space, it is easier to misread the headline. Let's imagine the story happened in Fresh Grocer. The grocery store is a much more public place in most people's minds than is the library. "HARASSMENT ALLEGED AT THE FRESH GROCER" "A man was scheduled to be arraigned last night for alleged sexual harassment in the Fresh Grocer." Is that different to anyone? Are your impressions much different? Here are my impressions: From the first headline I get the following possibilities, listed in order of my own subjective belief about their likelihood: harassment of employees by other employees, harassment of customers by other customers, harassment of employees by customers, harassment of customers by employees. I want to read on! "A man was scheduled to be arraigned last night for alleged sexual harassment in the Fresh Grocer." Here are my thoughts, in order of occurrence - 1. A pervert is bothering Fresh Grocer customers! 2. Wait, "sexual harassment" is a phrase usually used for perverts-at-work, "groper" is how public perverts are described 3. Well, it says, "a man," so I guess it is not an employee.

[QUOTE id="5c904d1e-c470-41da-aa43-7f880aee1b00"]Maybe it depends on who the reader assumes is using the library. Van Pelt library is a semi-public space. Maybe a lot of readers forget that the General Public is in and out of there, not just Penn students and employees. If you forget that Van Pelt is a semi-public space, it is easier to misread the headline. Let's imagine the story happened in Fresh Grocer. The grocery store is a much more public place in most people's minds than is the library. "HARASSMENT ALLEGED AT THE FRESH GROCER" "A man was scheduled to be arraigned last night for alleged sexual harassment in the Fresh Grocer." Is that different to anyone? Are your impressions much different? Here are my impressions: From the first headline I get the following possibilities, listed in order of my own subjective belief about their likelihood: harassment of employees by other employees, harassment of customers by other customers, harassment of employees by customers, harassment of customers by employees. I want to read on! "A man was scheduled to be arraigned last night for alleged sexual harassment in the Fresh Grocer." Here are my thoughts, in order of occurrence - 1. A pervert is bothering Fresh Grocer customers! 2. Wait, "sexual harassment" is a phrase usually used for perverts-at-work, "groper" is how public perverts are described 3. Well, it says, "a man," so I guess it is not an employee.[/QUOTE] Ok, we'll use your example , but let's do a fair comparison. Here's how the article actually would have opened, replacing "van pelt" with "fresh grocer": "Harassment alleged at Fresh Grocer. Woman who came to Fresh Grocer for job interview says she was groped by potential employer" Do you still assume a non-employee is responsible for the groping?

Eber DeVine is a great guy who does great work for the community it is a shame that his greedy family set him up because he inherited the family fortune.

I know the girl that made the claim on Eber DeVine. She was paid to tell the lies that she told. There is a story that will be coming out soon that details how Eber Devine's family was behind the set up. They are under investigation by the FEDS as we speak. This was all for the love of money.