Talk about irresponsible journalism
Can someone please enlighten me as to the purpose of this article?
NY Times Article
What earthly reason would the NY Times have for publishing an article about people's worries that Obama will go the way of MLK Jr. and Bobby Kennedy? Is this newsworthy? My first thought after reading the article is "Oh, God, now some looney tunes is actually going to try it". It doesn't seem to me to serve any purpose - maybe I'm missing something important but they could have written this article about security for the presidential candidates (they didn't even talk about the problems with his security detail, which have come to light in some of our blogs) without resorting to these kinds of sensational speculations. What do you think?
NY Times Article
What earthly reason would the NY Times have for publishing an article about people's worries that Obama will go the way of MLK Jr. and Bobby Kennedy? Is this newsworthy? My first thought after reading the article is "Oh, God, now some looney tunes is actually going to try it". It doesn't seem to me to serve any purpose - maybe I'm missing something important but they could have written this article about security for the presidential candidates (they didn't even talk about the problems with his security detail, which have come to light in some of our blogs) without resorting to these kinds of sensational speculations. What do you think?
Advertisement
Instead of printing something that would be useful, like a look at the actual issues and records of the candidates, they choose to be irresponsible. So what's new?
February 25, 2008 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Speculating that someone may kill him due to comparisons that have made between Obama and the Kennedys? Yeah, this sucks.
February 25, 2008 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's in response to the dissappointing and scary news that the Secret Service checks bags and frisks people in a "layered" fashion, which I took to mean "kinda when they felt like it".
I respect the Secret Service, but they have to get serious about this thing. This isn't 9 months before an election detail with an apathetic public. This is the real deal. Politics matters again, and things are charged up out there.
Anyway, the NYT's piece mentions one Congressman from Miss. that wrote a letter asking the Secret Service to buckle down. I hope this article forces all politicians to band together to demand GWBush-level protection for this candidate.
February 25, 2008 5:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
If the article raised the disappointing and scary news that the SS was not checking every single person at Obama's rallies, I could see the point of the article (maybe - I still don't think the references to MLK and Kennedy were necessary), but the ambiguous mention of one Congressman writing Homeland Security to beef up protection didn't address those concerns. I agree with DF - this really sucks and it shouldn't have been written in the way it was.
February 25, 2008 7:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's a valid concern. It's something my wife worries about.
I don't think that mentioning it makes it MORE of a danger, if anything, maybe it will get the Secret Service to do their job even better.
If someone could quote the parts of the article they feel is "not right" maybe I could address that specific point.
February 25, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wait a minute. Of course this is news. Understanding the motives and impulses of the American electorate is an important responsibility for media.
This kind of story could easily lead to a worthwhile survey question -- does the prospect of an assassination attempt on Barack Obama discourage you from voting him? Any evidence of what makes voters tick has essential value.
As for the danger factor, if the American voters were already talking about it, can we not assume that American psychos were as well?
February 25, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink