data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a3cf5/a3cf5d0a5c6804256609015a856d3494cfa271d7" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2fbaf/2fbafcaf350404695ba50890d83be72009962df4" alt=""
The former gets unlimited coverage because her grief can potentially hurt the President; and a free pass from the press on her somewhat controversial comments about Bush, the WOT, Iraq, Israel, and Afghanistan. Questioning her political views is considered "smearing" her.
Ms. Sheehan's non-stop media circus coverage is considered "appropriate" and "meaningful"; while coverage of Ms. Twitty's grief over the murder of her daughter on foreign soil is is "sensationalist journalism", and garners cheers and applause from journalists when a CNN anchor refuses to participate in a show highlighting the Holloway case. Isn't Natalee Holloway enough of a victim for the enlightened media? Are some mother's children not worthy of their attention?
Isn't a mother's grief morally unimpeachable?
Just wondering.
UPDATE: The Anchoress has answered my question.
UPDATE II: And read about the Left's "grief-based politics"; something I earlier referred to as "histrionics as a determinant for national policy."
No comments:
Post a Comment