The bottom line is: she's a campaign staffer but she didn't identify herself as such when she interacted with the media. That's unethical.
She could have asked all of those questions off camera or stepped between Brown and the media and directed the press conference by providing him an opportunity for an opening statement. She did none of that. Instead, she pretended like she was the media like anyone else -- and she wasn't.
And that instance of deception--and the willingness of Judge Brown to be complicit--makes a difference to some people. End of story.
Much of the reasoning in the comments here seems trivial but to each his own. You can't fault the CA for doing its job (re: gun permits) and one should certainly appreciate their efforts to stop frivolous access to their commenters' ID. With every new change, there is a period of adjustment. Some folks will return to the CA. Will everyone? No. I am a subscriber but what bothers me is that the Commercial Appeal is one of the biggest silos of privacy in the city. We know they are struggling but they rather spin it and not tell the public the full truth. They should trust their readers, be transparent about what's taking place, allow us to share in their discoveries. You save a newspaper by building relationships -- not cutting them off. Whether they will admit it or not, folks love the news here --and they love the CA.
Those impacted: Cindy Wolff, Shane McDermott, Gary Mangum, Mike Kerr, Scott Sines and Peggy Reissner Winburne. Two vacant spots were eliminated.
Marty: In terms of skepticism, little difference between the two. The official narrative is still official.
WM: "If Obama took credit for 9/11 while not having helped cause it, he paid the ultimate price."
I can accept skepticism. It's natural. People can/should be skeptical at times but we should know what that does to the public trust that must exist if people can truly co-exist on some level.
With that said, there's nothing inherently suspicious about the government clarifying the accounts of what happened. I would be more alarmed if they stuck their original script despite all the "evidence" and accounts that have come out since Obama announced the death.
There is nothing that is "irrefutable" -- if anything, things labeled as such only have a loaned shelf life until technology or something offers a counterargument. And there will always be a counterargument. The point is that no matter what Obama does in regards to OBL there will always be those who question it. And at that point, it's not Obama's actions that need scrutiny it's the motives of those skeptics that must be analyzed as well.
To that end, what makes you any different than Taily Ortiz and others who don't believe Obama's birth certificate? You're like kindred spirits in a way. Let that marinate for a second.
All Comments »
By Chris McCoy
download this issue
click here to see more »