The Names That Remain
Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2016 9:15 pm
Names can be fun as evidenced here on APOD. Names can also prove harmful when they are of people so disengaged their only hope is to terrorize for ill-gotten gains. I had hoped our local newspaper might publish this guest opinion. Satisfying curiosity is killing more than cats. We've been shown way too often. It's time to tell news writers to stop.
"Is anyone else tired of hearing in-depth reporting of the names, faces, and stories of terrorists? How many acts of villainy have been perpetrated by people so disentangled from society they believe the only way to be remembered is to do something for which they will "live on in infamy"? I care not to think of that number. Are journalists taught that the WHO, what, when, where, and why are so important that IF they choose to omit one they would be accused of bad journalism? Purposefully omitting the person's name for one that more aptly describes their act would report the "who" more responsibly. There is an endless supply of adjectives and nouns which I would rather see than the villain's actual identity. Did police in Nice need my help to corral "worthless nut case"? I would care to hear or see are the names and faces of the innocents should they wish to let their stories be told.
Reporters please move toward empowering those who deserve attention and away from providing fuel to fire any future fool whose goal is murder - hell bent to end in suicide for disingenuous glory."
ps – You can report the names of suicide bombers who blow up terrorists (if their remains are ID'd). The fiends of our enemies are our friends.
pps - Maybe it didn't get printed because editors don't liked being "dis"sed?
"Is anyone else tired of hearing in-depth reporting of the names, faces, and stories of terrorists? How many acts of villainy have been perpetrated by people so disentangled from society they believe the only way to be remembered is to do something for which they will "live on in infamy"? I care not to think of that number. Are journalists taught that the WHO, what, when, where, and why are so important that IF they choose to omit one they would be accused of bad journalism? Purposefully omitting the person's name for one that more aptly describes their act would report the "who" more responsibly. There is an endless supply of adjectives and nouns which I would rather see than the villain's actual identity. Did police in Nice need my help to corral "worthless nut case"? I would care to hear or see are the names and faces of the innocents should they wish to let their stories be told.
Reporters please move toward empowering those who deserve attention and away from providing fuel to fire any future fool whose goal is murder - hell bent to end in suicide for disingenuous glory."
ps – You can report the names of suicide bombers who blow up terrorists (if their remains are ID'd). The fiends of our enemies are our friends.
pps - Maybe it didn't get printed because editors don't liked being "dis"sed?