Fonticulus Fides

Thursday, September 29, 2005

This political moment brought to you by ABC...

Sorry, I can't help it. The headline I saw on the screen this a.m. when I was trying to get a weather report said, "Will Tom DeLay's Indictment Hurt Bush?"

Uhhhhh....newsflash for all you folks over at Good Morning America. Bush is in his second term. He can't be re-elected. And he can't be impeached because of something Tom Delay did (or didn't do, depending on who you believe). It's called a "lame duck presidency." So no, it won't hurt Bush. Why are you even bothering to ask the question?

I'm so sick of bad journalism these days. Not because I consider myself any stellar journalist -- I'm just a part-time feature writer for the small, Catholic paper around here. This week, though, our local newspaper made the hideous choice to publish the details of a five-year-old's molestation. Completely unnecessary to the story -- it was enough to say the poor kid was molested. But no, they gave ALL the details, which as far as I can see only serves to coach other child molestors (or would-be child molestors) as to how it's done.

--Sparki

2 Comments:

  • Fired PR Blogger Saga Rages On
    Wednesday, September 28, 2005, by Lockhart The saga of DwellingQuest 's fired PR person, Kelly Kreth, hits the Post todaya 'and, by extension, Gawker, where the commenters have a field day.
    Find out how you can buy and sell anything, like things related to music on interest free credit and pay back whenever you want! Exchange FREE ads on any topic, like music!

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:52 AM  

  • I deliberately skim through/mostly skip past reported details of murders and especially sexual violations -- it's not that I'm terribly squeamish or that I don't want to confront the fact that people can do such evil; I'd seriously be interested in being a homicide detective if a few notable things were different about my life. But in recent years I've begun to feel like it is possibly another violation for me, who has no need to know for purposes of justice, self-protection or anything, to read the details of such intense suffering others, strangers, have experienced.

    I also have this thing against showing dead bodies even covered by stretchers, or like a report I recently saw with a car that had been hit by a train and in which an adult and at least one child died. If it were my loved one, would I want even their covered corpse being shown taken from the scene like that, let alone pictures of the place where they died for people to gawk at the wreckage (and you can be pretty sure some people would be like, "Whoa, man, look at that! That's wicked, man! Haha!" and not exactly stop to pray for the dead.) I just don't see the need, except maybe in limited cases after the fact to drive home the danger of drunk driving etc. to people who need emotional imagery to learn -- maybe families would agree to it after they got to mourn and get over the initial shock.

    By Anonymous ro, at 2:15 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home