Boston Bombings Coverage: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly
Tuesday’s post featured Fareed Zakaria’s take on the Boston bombings, some of the rare “good” coverage of the attack. Jon Stewart, on the other hand, makes a living covering the “bad” and the “ugly” of American news. Today’s post features the “bad,” CNN’s embarrassing Boston bombings blunder.
“The GOP Must Seize The Center or Die”
That was the proposition being debated on NPR’s Intelligence Squared. It is perhaps the most important debate in American politics today.
The Intelligence Squared website describes the debate as follows:
2012 was a disappointing year for Republicans. The failure to win key swing states in the presidential election and surprising losses in the House and Senate have prompted some reflection. Was their embrace of small government, low taxes, and a strong conservative stance on social issues at odds with shifting American demographics? Or did the GOP embrace the right platform, but the wrong candidates?
The debaters included David Brooks (The New York Times) and Mickey Edwards (former US Congressman (R-OK)) arguing in favor of the motion and Laura Ingraham (The Laura Ingraham Show) and Ralph Reed (Faith & Freedom Coalition).
I have been hesitant to post coverage of the Boston bombings, primarily because the coverage has been poor. The most notable example of this is CNN’s embarrassing speculation about the suspects.
In contrast, Fareed Zakaria provides thoughtful reflections on the attack and what we should take away from it.
More on Rape and Victims’ Rights
After yesterday’s post about the emotional Radio Lab segment, “Rape and Reasonable Doubt”, I was reminded of a Moral Maze episode that debated victims’ rights and how victims are/should be treated in the criminal justice system. This Moral Maze debate provides an intellectual take on an issue that is emotionally charged and has high moral stakes.
Here is a part of Moral Maze‘s description of the episode:
The death of Frances Andrade, who killed herself days after testifying against Michael Brewer, the choirmaster who indecently assaulted her, has prompted a debate on how courts handle such cases. Could her suicide have been prevented? Did the defence counsel who cross-examined her, calling her a liar and a fantasist, bear some responsibility for her death? Or is it always important for the defence to challenge prosecution witnesses as robustly as the judge will allow? If so, the duty to protect vulnerable witnesses must rest with the police and the Crown Prosecution Service – and yet their overriding aim is to obtain a conviction. Frances Andrade was persuaded to give evidence (she did not herself initiate the investigation); perhaps she would have been better advised not to?
NPR’s Radio Lab tells the chilling story of a man falsely convicted of rape.
On July 29th, 1985, a 36-year-old woman named Penny Beerntsen went for a jog on the beach near her home. About a mile into her run, she passed a man in a leather jacket, said hello and kept running. On her way back, he re-appeared. What happened next would cause Penny to question everything she thought she knew about judging people — and, in the end, her ability to be certain of anything.
NOTE: This segment contains graphic descriptions of sexual assault and violence.