Low-class decision, Tharp.
You can read Tharp's defense here. His explanation boils down to, "Soldiers die in war, and I'm a veteran so I know that better than you." The reaction against Tharp is apparently running 70-to-1. Which seems about right to me. Only an elite moron would assume his readers in Merced don't realize soldiers die in war. And the people in Merced instinctively know a soldier's death should not be exploited.
.
.
.
You can read Tharp's defense here. His explanation boils down to, "Soldiers die in war, and I'm a veteran so I know that better than you." The reaction against Tharp is apparently running 70-to-1. Which seems about right to me. Only an elite moron would assume his readers in Merced don't realize soldiers die in war. And the people in Merced instinctively know a soldier's death should not be exploited.
.
.
.
12 comments:
This from the classically trained professional journalists who refused to show pictures of people leaping from the Twin Towers as a result of an attack by members of the Religion Of Peace because it might show suicide murderers in a bad light.
Those same sensitive and nuanced journalists who would not print the Mohamed cartoon pictures that were central to the whole point of the news stories because they did not want to offend the perpetually offended members of the Religion Of Peace.
Yes, those same journalists who would never consider printing a picture of a full term fetus with his brains sucked out as a part of a partial birth abortion because people already know abortion is not a pretty thing.
The exquisitely nuanced, professional judgment always comes down on the same side.
Who will publish the photo of last man out and turning off the lights at SACBEE? Can't wait.
2:29 -- Tharp's paper, the Sun-Star, is down to 6 to 8 pages in the front section. Might be time for a Sun-Star death watch update.
1:52 - If you truly believe that they "refused to show pictures of people leaping from the Twin Towers as a result of an attack by members of the Religion Of Peace because it might show suicide murderers in a bad light."
... oh my, where to start... You actually BELIEVE that? or is that more hyperbolic ranting ala Bachmann, Palin and Beck?
Come on... you really believe that?
(I'm sorry, it's hard to type when I'm giggling)
Do you really believe that the editor showed this dying marine against the wishes of his family so that we would know that war is brutal?
3:56...where do I start?
Do you understand the point that so called "professional journalists" hide behind their judgment to do what ever they damn well please to support their point of view.
Are you prepared to comment on that perspective (the thread here) or only to attack the poster?
What in the world does Beck have to do with either post? Or is that just gratuitous?
"(I'm sorry, it's hard to type when I'm giggling)"
People jumping off the Twin Towers...dead marines...abortions...
Real funny stuff. Enjoy your giggle.
Of course they refused to show the pictures of people jumping to their deaths from the twin towers because they did not want to be seeen as encouraging a backlash against those members of the Religion Of Peace.
Argue the point. Why is it that you leftist assholes think referring to Palin or Beck or anyone else makes any kind of an arugment? Address the point or STFU.
If it bleeds it leads.....
You guys got to remember for the Libs a dead soldier is a good thing as long as it advances their anti-American agenda.
Truth In Journalism Is Dead.
Though they should be considered, the family's wishes are not the determinant of whether to publish ot not to publish.
Would we ever see a headline here that reads "Against family's wishes, McClatchy editor publishes photo of convicted pedophile?"
Hell, let's just stop publishing anything that might offendn and complete the move from journalism to PR.
Post a Comment