zlacker

>>etc-ho+(OP)
This article is emblematic of everything wrong with "journalism" today. Regardless of what Garry wrote on Twitter (which I'm not defending), he didn't send the letters in question, which are the core of the incident. So some lunatic prints out a tweet and mails it to politicians at their home addresses, and the "journalist" spends a couple thousand words focusing on the tweet, and how the guy who wrote the tweet is rich.

Also, featuring the price of his liquor bottles (prominent in the first article about this by the same writer) is indicative of the level of pettiness involved. Maybe there's an actual story here, but this isn't it, and it's not clear that the story is more than "someone said something regrettable on Twitter".

>>timr+Y6
This comment is everything wrong with media literacy. It's absolutely worthwhile to cover highly public calls to violence of government officials by respected individuals with lots of power and the article makes it clear he personally did not send the letters. But denying that public calls to violence spurs actual violence is denial of basic cause and effect.

>>Arthan+d9
> It's absolutely worthwhile to cover highly public calls to violence of government officials by respected individuals with lots of power

I mean, sure...who are you arguing with? I didn't say nobody should cover this. I said this article is terrible.

> But denying that public calls to violence spurs actual violence is denial of basic cause and effect.

Yeah, except we have laws around this concept, and even if what you're saying were true in the US (it isn't, thankfully), it doesn't magicaly make hack journalism good.

Said differently, "incitement to violence" doesn't mean that missionlocal is high-minded and mature for spending two articles talking about the price of his liquor.