I just noticed this about the story of the IRS terrorist.
Of all the online news devoted to this story, only Fox took the liberty of publicly flogging the guy’s ego – even the Wall Street Journal seems fairly objective (though emphasizing on the headline he was a “tax protester”).
So my question is, what is the purpose of morally denouncing someone who is obviously in the wrong, and incidentally dead? Do we need to be told there is “no excuse” to make us avoid following in his footsteps?
These are story intros from various sites:
“AUSTIN, Texas – A software engineer furious with the Internal Revenue Service launched a suicide attack on the agency Thursday by crashing his small plane into an office building containing nearly 200 IRS employees, setting off a raging fire that sent workers running for their lives.” – Yahoo
“Joe Stack was upset with the Internal Revenue Service, officials say; at least two people are hospitalized in deliberate air attack. ” – msnbc
“A portrait is beginning to emerge of Joseph Stack, the man officials believe set his house on fire and then intentionally crashed a plane into a building with an IRS office.” – CNN
“['COWARDLY,CRIMINAL'] Police say ‘there was no excuse’ for disturbed pilot flying single-engine plane into Texas office building that houses IRS employees.” -Fox News
“The pilot of a small plane that slammed into a building in Austin apparently posted an anti-government manifesto and may have targeted the offices of the IRS after a tax dispute.” – Wall Street Journal
President Teleprompter – that’s a good point. Now relating it to my question, which seems to have not been asked correctly, it would suggest that Fox has been partly editorial due to the inability both of them and their readers to perceive its opinionated quality, in other words the language is utilized to an entirely different art than liberals, independents and such are used to practicing, so we see things that are unintentional. Is that your point?
Also the only other answer I see is that they’re doing it for the ratings, but that’s why I emphasized that it’s inherently sensational news, so why do they need to “embellish” on it to get ratings?