From: INVALID_SEE_SIG@example.com.invalid
In the previous article, danny burstein wrote,
quoting me:
> >And now the story has disappeared down the memory hole and no one
> >at all is claiming this, so I conclude that it was false. And
> >furthermore, based on long-established media practice, I conclude
> >that it was a fabrication[1] for the purpose of making the injury
> >sound less serious.
>
> First, let's point out that this is a distinction
> without a difference.
Physically, sure. Psychologically and therefore politically, it's a
significant difference. The thought "If his head had just been an
inch to his right ..." is scary and, for lack of a better word,
powerful. The thought "Well, the bullet was two feet away and broke
something that kind of injured him ..." -- much less so. We've all
been cut by glass, that's not very exciting.
> The shooter fired numerous
> bullets at the candidate, and whether the injuries
> were from a fortuitously grazing chunk of metal or
> a piece of flying glass, etc., the bigger story
> remains the same. TFG was a target of an assassination
> attempt.
Sure, that's *a* story, but lots of presidents get shot at without ill
effect and no one much cares. When someone comes *close*, then people
a) take notice and b) remember. People talked about Squeaky Fromme's
shot at Gerald Ford for months. People forgot about the guy who shot
at the White House in 2011 after two news cycles.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / baldwin@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it.-T. Lehrer
***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
