Too Much Information
So the News and Observer won and got access to the Eve Carson autopsy. Is that information that we really needed? While I won't argue the public's right to know, I do question in this case our need to know. Acknowledgement that she was shot by two different weapons as reported by a tipster is probably all that needed to be said. Yeah, I know I could have chosen not to read it but in this case I think the N&O should have chosen not to write it - or at least to write it differently. Whatever justification they come up with (and they'll undoubtedly feel the need to justify it since they're already coming under heat), the bottom line was in fact the bottom line - this was something that they felt (probably rightly) would sell papers. I'm sure it did. But I'd much rather have Page 3 girls if they want to appeal to prurient interests - much more pleasant than autopsy reports of murdered college girls or dead NASCAR heroes.Labels: Stuff
2 Comments:
It's sad that in over 4 years of blogging, the only two comments I've ever felt compelled to delete were both on posts referencing Eve Carson.
To the anonymous fucktard whose comment I deleted - go piss in someone else's pool. You're not welcome here.
This is a case in which news organizations have to balance carefully what they CAN publish against what they SHOULD. And they need to do that, because if they too often publish what they really shouldn't just because they can, then they find themselves with new legal limits on what they can publish (e.g., autopsy photos, which were public in N.C. until Dale Earnhart's were published on a Web site, IIRC). And the more those limits expand, the harder it gets to put truly noteworth information before the public.
I suspect reasonable people can come to different conclusions on this one, but other than perhaps the info about two different weapons, I'm not sure whether the essential understanding the public gains is worth what I'm sure is additional pain for her family and friends.
Post a Comment
<< Home