I want to know from older dopers how the coverage compares to previous assassination attempts. Obviously much has changed in the 40+ years but I mean in terms of quality journalism.
~Max
You shouldn’t have to “try” to recall what you were referring to. It didn’t go anywhere; everyone can still see what you wrote.
I wasn’t talking about your backtracking piss poor attempt at an analogy. I was talking about what you originally wrote. Again, what you wrote is still there and everyone can still see it. You initially said, very clearly, that
Which is very clearly wasn’t. If you wanted to be wrong in attributing the cause of the Civil War to Lincoln’s “divisiveness” in his election and presidency, you should have said that in the first place. Instead, you flatly stated that the Civil War was started because of Lincoln. If you don’t want to sound like you’re about to start calling it the War of Northern Aggression, you should write more clearly in the first place.
I originally, initially, in the first place, wrote:
~Max
You don’t have to be an old fart- just go to youtube and watch the coverage of JFK’s assassination. One detail that sticks out for me is that they repeatedly stated that a secret service agent was killed in the assassination. Reports of LBJ being injured were broadcast and later denied. There were reports of a man and a woman being detained on the triple overpass. I think it’s inherent in breaking news- you have to fill the air so repeat what you do know over and over and also report a lot of unvetted stuff.
Trump wasn’t in on it!
The GOP would have been happy with either outcome. If he survived, he’d knock Biden out of the headlines and gain an opportunity to look tough and defiant. And if he died, the party could run someone like Vance who’d enact Project 2025 and not be a complete idiot in the process.
(I’m mostly kidding, btw.)
Thank you for my cat-startling guffaw of the day.
Mine too. Now my cat thinks I’m just as divisive as Lincoln. I’ll never live it down.
Yeah, I call stuff like that “entrenching tools”. When the story first broke about the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, before the freeway chase, the L.A. Times quoted some expert (named? I forget) who speculated that the weapon used was an entrenching tool. Then there was an explanation of what an entrenching tool was. Then the chase happened, and no one ever mentioned an entrenching tool again; it was the search for The Knife. So yeah, there are a few entrenching tools in this coverage.
Fun Fact: That Dude moved to the States and opened up a Pizza joint. Land of Opportunity!
Which quote? And re: the main photo, there isn’t any interesting debate to be had about it being splashed all over the place. It’s quite normal that it’s in our faces like that. It is to be expected. It’s a dramatic historical photo of an attempted assassination of a former US president. It tells the entire story in one image. It is Blue-Chip and 5-Star.
The role of journalism in the public sphere is to tell the world what’s happening. Would you have that photo buried back with the classified ads (if there were such a thing anymore)?
The OP’s apparent assertion that the media had some kind of responsibility to put Trump’s immediate statement after the shooting and the “cool” photo into a different context, so that Trump didn’t come off as reasonable, courageous, or conciliatory.
CNN’s Sanjay Gupta hasn’t covered himself in glory with the respect to the Trump shooting, based on this commentary:
Trump was nicked by a projectile fired from distance; he didn’t experience a “gunshot blast’ near the head” and there’s no reason to think that as a result of the incident he needs what Gupta regards as a full-scale neurological workup.
Having a complete independent workup to include cognitive capacity is on the other hand warranted, based on all the crazy stuff issuing from Trump in recent weeks and months.
Sheess. Yeah the bullet hit him before ANYONE would have even heard the gunshot. A gunshot from 400 feet away is recognizable as a gunshot, or perhaps firecracker or something.
Two possibilities - Sanjay Gupta
- Hasn’t the first clue what happened
- Is a complete idiot and has NO business commenting on it, and should not be in the medical profession.
I agree. But it’s just going to show what the majority knows already.
I suspect that if the bullet was producing sonic effects strong enough to cause brain damage, it would have splattered that ear, rather than nicking it. So, some bullets possibly could, but this one didn’t.
The psychological effects could happen from nearby firecrackers.