Originally posted by ITravelNow:
The other important part of Tom's observation is how would you feel if the press decided you didn't have the right to know what this deranged individual said or published?
Sometimes we don't like the harsh facts but we can choose to view or not.
I've heard more complaints about the press that feature the argument that they don't tell the full story. It's not easy being the messenger. It's not always easy to balance the coverage of the full story. Ironically in many cases both sides of an issue will complain about "coverage" being slanted towards the "wrong" side.
A free press isn't perfect but what would we do without it?
First if given a choice I'll always err on the side of too much news. The complaint isn't so much with having it available, it's more to do with it the killer being plastered all over the evening news, nightline, 20/20, etc.
I feel what would have been a better way to present it, would have been to mention that he had a manifesto written, tell us what some of what he said, and if we the public wished to view his rantings, they could click on the news organization's web site. Don't news organizations nowadays tell us over and over to "see more of this story, click on 7Online.com" or any of the other news organizations? Then they could have talked more about the victims.
