An article on the News and Record website goes after Rep. Virginia Foxx for what is perceived to be a violation of certain unwritten speech codes. According to the tenets of contemporary liberalism, violations in the particular subject area Foxx discussed are impermissible. So the offender must be pounced upon by the news media.
Some of us recall that, during the fall campaign, Kay Hagan did not merit coverage over her household's membership in a segregated country club years ago. That certainly did not merit prominent press attention, according to the standard of objectivity maintained at the local paper. Hagan's recent actions firing two African-American staffers did not garner much coverage, either.
Now, it is difficult to recall Rep. Foxx having received prominent print recognition for good things she has done, despite years of service. It is difficult to recall significant coverage examining the totality of her record.
Instead, we see the enforcement of speech codes. It is little wonder less people pay attention to newspapers nowadays.
Update: Doug Clark of the editorial department says Foxx was right on the substance of the matter-- that Shepard was not killed because he was gay-- but says she used a poor choice of words. Hardly justifies what the news section is trying to do to her.
"compared to the level of brutality in other murders"
--Why take the time to tie someone up and beat them with a gun during a robbery, and leave them half alive? They did have a gun and they could've took him out easily. Wasn't it the defense that brought up the gay panic defense, of course, I only read about it..so...plus, I'm still trying to decide whether I'm alive or just a part of Guarino's dream.
Posted by: brandonB | May 01, 2009 at 08:49 PM
brandonB, I wasn't attacking you personally, I thought I made that clear. I was trying to determine just how you came about the information you used in forming your opinion. And, yes, since you weren't in court and didn't hear the testimony on which the jury relied for their verdict then you can't know exactly what was presented.
By what source did you become aware of the findings of the autopsy? Have you read a copy of the autopsy report? Have you read the court testimony? Or have you just heard TV news reports or read news articles that gave you the facts?
There a large difference between using source documents [documentary evidence presented and accepted in court] and reading a print reporter or a TV news anchor's characterization of the facts.
My point is that many times our opinions are based on what we've heard second- or third-hand and we're often fed erroneous information by the media.
Again, don't take this personally, I'm just trying to illuminate the problem with relying on news reports to form an opinion.
Posted by: jaycee | May 01, 2009 at 10:00 PM
"There a large difference between using source documents and reading a print reporter..."
I don't see why an "official" would be beyond forging or doctoring documents to obtain a desired effect or outcome. In your eyes then, if an official declares it true, than it must be so?
I'm well aware of what media is and does. I am going by an article that quotes the coroner's testimony. So what is this? You are not actually disputing what exactly happened, just disputing the fact that it could've not been true? I don't understand. My opinions are based on what I've heard...AND JUDGED to be true.
Posted by: brandonB | May 01, 2009 at 10:23 PM
Sorry, brandonB, you're missing my point entirely. I guess I didn't come across clearly, let's not belabor this any longer.
Posted by: jaycee | May 02, 2009 at 12:09 AM
No, your point is understood. We should be skeptical if info comes from what you personally deem a possibly tainted source; but from an "official" source? Well, it must be true!
Posted by: brandonB | May 02, 2009 at 12:34 AM
What do you think, Fred? Poop? Cross? Same thing? Still befuddled by the meaning of intimidation?
Posted by: Roch101 | May 02, 2009 at 10:08 AM