![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rdI honestly can't decide which of these two things are more deserving of this blog's catchphrase today. Let's get this party started with some bad journalism and some worse Q&A.
Today's NYTimes online (free registration required) sent me a link to a story with the headline, "Anti-Abortion Protester Slain; Suspect Is in Custody.". I followed this story as it developed yesterday in a small town near Flint, Mich., because I saw a blog asking if this man, James Pouillon, would get as much coverage as the murder of abortion doctor Dr. George Tiller. Tiller had been threatened with physical violence and even shot before his death, and everyone involved in the threats were anti-abortionists. His alleged killer (see what I did there? He hasn't been convicted yet, so I used the appropriate terminology) was an anti-abortion activist who had no other prior contact with Tiller, so evidence is strong that the motive for the alleged murder (and again! my journo instincts are pretty hot today) had to do with Tiller's occupation.
With a headline like the one used by the Times, a reader would expect that that the shooter had strong ties to pro-life activism or at least a history of opposition to Pouillon's beliefs. Furthermore, the second line in the NYT article is, "Leaders of anti-abortion groups said they knew of no other instance in which a person protesting against abortion had been killed." The story quotes Troy Newman, president of an anti-abortion group, who said, "There is very little, if any, common ground between pro-abortion and pro-life people. ... One thing we had in common after Dr. Tiller’s death, there was a unilateral cry against violence."
So basically, what you're saying, NYT, is that the admitted shooter Harlan Drake is a pro-choicer who has taken up arms against anti-abortion protesters, am I right?
But look! Actual news coverage of the story on ConnectMidMichican.com (an NBC affiliate) shows that the admitted shooter, Harlan Drake, killed two men that day and planned to kill another. He had grudges against all three. It seems he targeted Pouillon because, as he told police, "he was 'offended' by Pouillon’s anti-abortion messages." The offensive material in question were "graphic displays of aborted fetus’ [sic] on [Pouillon's] protest signs."
MLive.com, a Flint News affiliate, quotes the town's Police Chief in saying that Drake didn't like how Pouillon protested near schools. The chief said, "[Drake] didn't think kids should have to look at that."
No word yet on why Drake shot the second victim, the owner of a gravel pit. There was a third intended victim, according to Drake. The police chief said, "Drake apparently felt that [the third man] had wronged his mother on a business deal."
So, NYTimes. Do you really think it was appropriate to write a story implying a huge political motive to an instance of personal anger and violence? Of course not. NEW YORK TIMES, USE YOUR BRAIN.
***
And then there's Joe Quesada and his insulting non-response to a valid question about the sexism in the promotional material for an upcoming Marvel comic. I'd like to go into detail about this, but honestly, blogger 1979Semi-Finalist pretty much said it all. Read all about it while I go eat brunch. JOE QUESADA, USE YOUR BRAIN.
Today's NYTimes online (free registration required) sent me a link to a story with the headline, "Anti-Abortion Protester Slain; Suspect Is in Custody.". I followed this story as it developed yesterday in a small town near Flint, Mich., because I saw a blog asking if this man, James Pouillon, would get as much coverage as the murder of abortion doctor Dr. George Tiller. Tiller had been threatened with physical violence and even shot before his death, and everyone involved in the threats were anti-abortionists. His alleged killer (see what I did there? He hasn't been convicted yet, so I used the appropriate terminology) was an anti-abortion activist who had no other prior contact with Tiller, so evidence is strong that the motive for the alleged murder (and again! my journo instincts are pretty hot today) had to do with Tiller's occupation.
With a headline like the one used by the Times, a reader would expect that that the shooter had strong ties to pro-life activism or at least a history of opposition to Pouillon's beliefs. Furthermore, the second line in the NYT article is, "Leaders of anti-abortion groups said they knew of no other instance in which a person protesting against abortion had been killed." The story quotes Troy Newman, president of an anti-abortion group, who said, "There is very little, if any, common ground between pro-abortion and pro-life people. ... One thing we had in common after Dr. Tiller’s death, there was a unilateral cry against violence."
So basically, what you're saying, NYT, is that the admitted shooter Harlan Drake is a pro-choicer who has taken up arms against anti-abortion protesters, am I right?
But look! Actual news coverage of the story on ConnectMidMichican.com (an NBC affiliate) shows that the admitted shooter, Harlan Drake, killed two men that day and planned to kill another. He had grudges against all three. It seems he targeted Pouillon because, as he told police, "he was 'offended' by Pouillon’s anti-abortion messages." The offensive material in question were "graphic displays of aborted fetus’ [sic] on [Pouillon's] protest signs."
MLive.com, a Flint News affiliate, quotes the town's Police Chief in saying that Drake didn't like how Pouillon protested near schools. The chief said, "[Drake] didn't think kids should have to look at that."
No word yet on why Drake shot the second victim, the owner of a gravel pit. There was a third intended victim, according to Drake. The police chief said, "Drake apparently felt that [the third man] had wronged his mother on a business deal."
So, NYTimes. Do you really think it was appropriate to write a story implying a huge political motive to an instance of personal anger and violence? Of course not. NEW YORK TIMES, USE YOUR BRAIN.
***
And then there's Joe Quesada and his insulting non-response to a valid question about the sexism in the promotional material for an upcoming Marvel comic. I'd like to go into detail about this, but honestly, blogger 1979Semi-Finalist pretty much said it all. Read all about it while I go eat brunch. JOE QUESADA, USE YOUR BRAIN.