“Smith wrote a great and moving blog post, but he talked too much about the horror of the crime”….Respectfully, I disagree with you. The whole point of the argument is the weight of the appropriateness for public consumption as well as the potential damage to an already immensely grieving father. Are you aware of the specifics ? Steve Smith was exactly right in his editorial choices, and if you looked at it more objectively you might just agree.
~Case in point below~
-
You stated:

“When we step out to explain to the public — or rather, when we pull back the curtain and show them the engine, the gears and pistons, of how journalism works, we need to remember that we have our own jargon, our own shortcuts and slang — our own odd culture. The public wasn’t brought up in our culture, and things that are as clear as clean window glass to us can be much murkier to almost everyone else.”
-
I would submit to you that you look at this issue without a sense of objectivity. You mention your jargon and slang and this so-called culture of yours(journalism)as if it is more important than right and wrong. There is nothing wrong with being a strident journalist seeking the truth. But you need a dose of humanity. Steve Smith, as you duly note, felt deeply about this, just as his reporters were having nightmares and sleeping problems. The visual horrors of this trial would make Stephen King blush. Steve Smith took that into consideration. I would ask you if there is nothing you would edit…no matter how horrific ? If your answer is no, I rest my case.
-
David Elton
Spokane, Washington
EltonResearch.com
———————————————