Making National Headlines: A Lazy AP Writer Hits the Bottom of the Barrel

The death of Nathaniel Jones after a struggle with police is now the headline on FOX News while not as big a news story on CNN. In the AP article from CNN this tidbit is funny:

Black activists say the death Sunday of Nathaniel Jones, 41, was another example of brutality involving Cincinnati police. The fatal shooting of an unarmed black man by a white police officer in April 2001 prompted three nights of rioting in the city.

"How many of our people have to die before the city decides to do something about it?" said Nathaniel Livingston Jr. of the Coalition for a Just Cincinnati.

Once again we have a local AP reporter who is too lazy to go and get a quote from someone who actually speaks for someone beside himself. Nate gives an inflammatory comment that makes for good copy and Boom, here come the headlines. I would love it if AP reporters always signed their names. What I think is the same story in the LA Times lists John Nolan as the writer. He has personally caused this case to become a big story by giving attention to individuals and groups that are racist and bigoted, who care not about fact, but instead are out to gain attention for their black separatist cause. If you want to quote a black activist whom "most" people would agree to a degree represents the "black community", then why not quote Damon Lynch III? (At this point if "Someone" is on the ball he will be copying my post to his group's website and chiding me without end.)

More Coverage: ABC, ONN, LA Times.

UPDATE: The AP story has been cleaned up a bit with new information but it still includes a quote from Livingston. The main update includes preliminary autopsy information indicating Mr. Jones had an enlarged heart and his blood contained both cocaine and PCP (Angel Dust).

I am amazed this was the "top story" on the Yahoo Most Viewed story list.

Michael at Rantophilia also comments.

Overreaching Article of the Day

From Friday I learned something new. Since Cincinnati has 3 "trendy" clubs: Jeff Ruby's Tropicana, Red Cheetah, and the unmentioned Club Clau, and people don't behave like "angels" while there, our city is not as "conservative" as you might think.

Ahem.

I first have to laugh at this as a news story. This is not a news story, it is a commercial. If the writer wanted to show the city was not conservative, why not talk about the vibrant gay community? Why not talk about the various progressive groups around town?

What I find most funny is that a majority of the people who go to these clubs, if they vote at all, likely vote Republican and considered themselves "conservative." They would just not consider themselves CCV style prudes.

More on Man Dying After Being Arrested

The Enquirer has a full report on the incident including a full quote from Roger Webster, FOP President:

"My question to the police administration is, what criminal act are you investigating? You are accusing these cops of being criminals," Webster said angrily outside police headquarters. "That is why they don't want to work, because they are treated worse than the criminals they arrest."

Webster is not helping quell the situation. His officers are not going to be fired, so he will do more good if he would shut his trap.

UPDATE: The Post's Story, and their gross speculative analysis.

Hitting the Fan?

A man died early Sunday morning after being in police custody. The information thus far shows no wrongdoing, but for some that will not matter. I hope the city increases police protection at the Council Meeting. There are calls for protests already from the Boycott B.

The FOP President went way overboard with his reaction. His comment "...that’s why they don't want to work..." sounds like conformation of the "slowdown" that occurred after the 2001 riots.

Other coverage: WCPO

QCF Gets Panned

Greg Mann from Notes from Ground Level is less than impressed with the writing at Queen City Forum, especially the column on the Second Amendment.

It's Alive!

The "Real Life, Real News" initiative appears to be off the ground at the Enquirer. Will there be any hard news columns in the Metro Section anymore? The Enquirer appears to have let some columnists go, or at least reassigned them to other jobs. Denise Smith-Amos and Karen Gutiérrez are the two that come to mind most. Where are they? They are off the columnist roster and have not written for some time. With the retirement of Laura Pulfer there are really few columnists left at the Enquirer. Does this mean they have hired more reporters? Or have the former columnists become reporters? Even John Kiesewetter is no longer listed as an Enquirer Columnist.

The Opinion Page appears to have the most changes. I give you one conservative newspaper with a columnist line up like this:
Sunday – Richard Cohen and Walter Williams
Monday – Leonard Pitts Jr.
Tuesday – William Safire
Wednesday – Richard Cohen and Kathleen Parker
Thursday – William Safire
Friday – Charles Krauthammer
Saturday – James J. Kilpatrick and Kathleen Parker

A rundown
Richard Cohen: Moderate Liberal
Walter Williams: Rush Limbaugh Conservative
Leonard Pitts Jr: Moderate Liberal
William Safire: Old Northeastern Conservative
Kathleen Parker: Moderate Conservative
Charles Krauthammer: Hardline Conservative
James J. Kilpatrick: Conservative who usually has non-political columns appear in the Enquirer.

So we have 10 total syndicated columnist spots in the Enquirer. 3 of those 10 spots are filled by "liberals." That would be 30% of the time for those keeping stats. Ah, yes, that would be fair and balanced for someone looking to provide a conservative editorial page.

Suckers Born Again

Reading the letters to editor of the Enquirer today demonstrates how people are suckered by PR. The letters gush in pride and pats on the back for Bush. What did he really do? He did nothing. He sneaked into the country and visited some troops at the Baghdad Airport. The country is far to dangerous for him to stay more than a few hours, let alone overnight.

I have no problem with Bush going. It is good for morale. It is traditional for Presidents to visit the troops on Thanksgiving in time of war. His dad did it during the First Gulf War. What I despise is the obvious use of it as a means of Public Relations. The purpose of this event was to change public opinion if favor of George Bush. This really was not about the troops. If this was about the troops, then I think Bush would have made an effort to see a whole lot more than just one small group at the airport.

What adds insult to injury to this is Bush's weekly radio address. Bush tells us of the efforts of citizens to support the troops:

The courage of our soldiers and their families show the spirit of this country in great adversity. And many citizens are showing their appreciation by helping military families here at home.

Members of the VFW have started an Adopt-A-Unit program, so veterans and their families can support military units in Iraq and Afghanistan. Volunteers from a group called Rebuilding Together have repaired homes for military families while their spouses are deployed.

Citizens interested in finding volunteer opportunities to support our military should visit the USA Freedom Corps website at usafreedomcorps.gov.

Why do civilians need to help the troops in the field? Why isn't the military taking care of their own soldiers and the immediate families of those soldiers?

I also want to point out this statement from Bush:

I'm pleased to report back from the front lines that our troops are strong, morale is high and our military is confident we will prevail.

Yes, I think Bush can state the troops are strong. What I don't think he can say from first hand experience that morale is high. Bush spent time with troops at one location for a couple of hours. Secondly, no troops is going to say anything to Bush other than that their morale is high. The troops know better and the military brass knows to filter who meets Bush.

I am just disgusted by how this trip is being trumpeted by the media and by Conservatives as something important or substantial. Nothing has changed. The situation of our troops has not changed at all. Iraq is not any better off than it was before. It was a nice symbolic gesture of the President to take this significant risk to fly into Iraq for 2+ hours. It might be more valuable for Bush to spend his time making it safe for him to spend the night in Baghdad.

UPDATE: Roger Ailes (the good one) comments and they sting.