Good story in today's (yes that means Saturday) Wall Street Journal about a seemingly mild-mannered women who chucks her marriage and family to help a prison inmate she's fallen in love with escape. Both were caught soon after and who knows why this woman did this beyond what she felt was love for the inmate (possible) and the feelings of being trapped (most definite).
Not here to offer my ten cents on any of that. What I'm babbling about is the part in the story that explains that the woman's now ex-husband declined to be interviewed. Story tells us the reporter tried his home phone, cell phone and place or work. We get it, you tried and he didn't want to talk. This is the new age of journalism. Apparently, it's not enough to just say someone declined to comment. You have to show the extreme lengths you went to in trying to get that comment. Maybe I'm old school. Tell me the guy declined to comment and I'll take it at face value. Tell your editor how hard you tried to get him to speak, you don't have to tell me. Heck, I read that and thought "jeez, once it became apparent the guy didn't want to talk, couldn't you have let it go?"
I think I ranted about this once before, but I'm not transparent and I couldn't be reached for comment.
Since we're critiquing the media this morning, what's with the NYT Obama story. I don't weigh in on politics. I have not decided which one of these candidates is least offensive to me, but that the NYT puts drugs and Obama in the same headline with an old photo that looks like he was an extra in "What's Happening" seems questionable. Yes, the headline is that drugs didn't play a big part in Obama's life. But guess what? Doesn't matter. The headline has drugs and Obama in it and that's all people will need to go to town. I'm not saying don't do the story. I'm saying headlines are dangerous things. The story may be very positive for Obama, but right now I'm guessing the only people really feeling good about it regardless of what it says is the Clinton campaign.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
The privacy rant - I'm with you.
Politics sucks. I've listed my political affiliation on (gag) Facebook as apathetic.
Who gives a shit about drugs and Obama. GWB is a friend of ours (and its not his business what anyone thinks of him...)
Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the Bush clan, not by a long shot. This is why these comments probably won't matter all that much to the voting public.
Our generation was the first to experiment openly with mood-altering substances. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any politicians with an entirely stain-free profile.
The grass always seems greener, until you get what you want, get caught trying, or are on the 'other side'. Damn media. Good for that guy. No comment.
Post a Comment