I can see where family and friends of the victim might be upset reading that sort of detail in the story, but I honestly don’t see how mentioning that the murder weapon was an axe is any worse than if the murderer had used a knife or gun. Now if the paper had printed photos from the crime scene, that would be an entirely different story. I doubt the average reader even knows what “blunt force trauma” is. The caller sounds a bit over-sensitive.

I actually feel that the PD is lacking in good journalistic details 99% of the time - not the other way around. The PD never reported that Mugabe’s opponent’s wife had her hands and feet cut off before setting her on fire. I want details, all the details, names, nationalities, legal or illegal. This is supposed to be jouralism. The PD has long been hiding election atrocities in Africa (such as those committed by Sen. Obama’s Luo tribe) and the LA gang slaying of late. This is the news business guys, not the PC business. Get in the game or fold!

P.S. How could I forget? I also hate all the half-page pictures of kids playing in firing hydrants and eating snow cones. Note: this too is not news. Please, PD, give us the news and leave the tripe for Family Circle.

Did your night editor ask the lady how she arrived at blunt force being used. It was an ax. If it was a double bitted ax, no blunt force was used. It it was a single bitted ax and the blade was used, it was not blunt force. If Blunt side of the ax was used, then it was blunt force.

I like all the technical details. If a knife was used, how long was the blade, and what was the brand name, was it double edged or single edged, and of course how many times was the victim stabbed. If you have4 an extra column inch, it would be nice for me to know where the victim was received each of the stab wounds.

Have a nice 4th everybody. I’m going fishing. I like to outsmart fish, that can’t think. It makes me feel superior. Unfortunately, the fish often win.

That was a long way to go to take a shot (a very long shot) at Obama.

Not really slam. Why doesn’t the PD and the AP describe Mugabe’s Marxist/collectivism regime and how he screwed up a great country by taking away the land from white farms and how people are starving now and inflation is like 100%. Why are they afraid of reporting the details of what happens under Marxist regimes? Is it because Obama is also a Marxist? What do you think?

No one could deny it depends on the situation. If it does not need to be mentioned, or could be mentioned more obliquely and not hurt the story or people’s right to know, then probably the specifics should be bypassed. But what about the reporter who documented the man being murdered with a gunshot to the head during the Vietnam war? That photo was a part of the journalistic effort that got us out of the war, that brought the war home for people in graphic detail. In that case, though the photo documented the death of a man just moments before it actually happened, it was justified. Just as a photo of a dead American soldier being dragged through the streets is justified, despite the unfortunate impact on the family. People need to know the consequences of their decisions and thier tacit or outspoken approval of the United States’ involvement in a war. They need to see the cruel realities of the situation that was brought about by their decision to elect a certain president. It would also be justified to show the process — though gruesome — in which cows, pigs, and chickens are killed and processed to covert them into neat and tuck-pointed and sanitized — from a mental and emotional standpoint — ‘Happy Meals.’

I lifted this comment from a blogger on American Thinker just in case you think I am making this stuff up.

A rather appropriate story for Independence Day weekend and a lesson to any Libs who may be reading. Mugabe, I believe, rose to power by promising to ‘liberate’ Africans from the white oppressor land owners. At the time, Zimbabwe was the bread basket of Africa. But Mugabe took the farms away from people who knew how to run them and gave them to people who had no idea how to run a farm, because they had never done it.
This is what you get when government becomes too powerful.
Always, always be careful what you wish for.

Posted by: Ed | July 5, 2008 09:46 PM

I will add this as an aside: The press today is not doing its job covering this bogus Iraqi war. The press during the Vietnam era did its job — in fact, it did its job grandly. I’m sorry about the way the vets were treated, but the media can’t control how people process the information given to them. The press can only control how it delivers the information to the people. The press that has covered this war and this White House is a joke. For the most part, they’re lapdogs that would better serve themselves and this country — sad to say — if they just went into public relations. Let real journalists take over. Isn’t it interesting how much “embedded” reporter sounds like, “in bed?” I think the term speaks volumes about most reporters covering this war. What the media should have done was pool their resources and go to these private companies that supply the troops with their protective equipment (and that’s another issue: the marketing of this war, and who’s making money off it — such as outsourcing of work that used to be done by soldiers themselves, et al.) and provide as many reporters as possible with what they need to be protected. They could then go into the field — like the Vietnam reporters did — and get the unofficial, unsanitized version that the government works to keep out of the news. The media could also buy as many upgraded, armored Hummers as they need. Yes, there would be a risk to the reporters to approach it in this way, but there has always been risks to reporters covering war zones. Of course, none of this would ever be done with today’s media, because spending money on equipment such as this would impact the bottom line, which is all the “conservative” companies that own much of the media really care about anyway. And yes, the overall media is “conservative.” The only reason most of the news is “liberal,” if one wants to term it that way, is because “liberal” news, to most of the media’s audience members, is sexier and sells better? Now, did I adequately document the state of the media today? It’s really not ironic that a company whose icon is Mickey Mouse has holdings in the media. But the people have of this country have made their own bed. You vote with your money. And they’ve voted with their money by watching certain shows (ref. “American Idol”) and buying certain products, which only support the big media guys. The small, independent press — for all practical purposes — is gone. Would the last person out the door please turn out the lights? Oh, and I think I hear the printing press still running too. Make sure you turn the press off before you leave the building also.

Personally, I don’t need to live in a big bubble like the woman you mentioned…I am, however, confused as how an axe qualifies as ‘blunt’ force trauma. Last time I checked axes were pretty darn sharp! Just me?