I'm not sure how much of this will actually apply to communications, but I think it should and I just want to say it so whatever. A friend of mine from highschool died early Friday morning in a car crash. I'm obviously very upset by this. What I want to talk about, however, is the way the media, particularly the Hamilton Spectator, reported on the crash. Mita and Trevor were driving the wrong way on the 403 at 3:00 AM and slammed into a transport truck. Mita is alright, but Trevor was killed instantly. This is a tragedy, he was 22 years old, a great guy, and he didn't deserve this. His parents have already lost one son and now they've got to repeat the whole ordeal again, they don't deserve this. What really makes me angry though, is that the day after the accident I read about it in the paper. The Spec, without having any concrete facts about what my friends were doing at the time, insinuated that Mita had been drinking. The article then proceded to use my friend's death as a soapbox from which to preach the evils of drinking and driving. Mita was not drinking. It was 3 AM, it was extremely foggy, and she didn't realize what was happening until she saw the headlights of the trucks in front of her. The irresponsibility of the Spectator using conjecture as evidence has now added insult upon injury to the families and friends of Mita and Trevor. Now people all over this city believe another stupid drunk driver has killed someone, and that 'stupid drunk driver' is my friend. She is already going to have to deal with Trevor's death for the rest of her life, she doesn't need this added stigma on her shoulders. I don't know that everyone believes that she was drunk, or how many just assumed, all I know is that when I read the article I believed she was drinking and that hurts so much.