Quote of the day—Paul Barrett

The Times did not help matters by illustrating its article with a large photo of a grieving mother accompanied by a prominently displayed quote: “There are no accidents. There are simply irresponsible, stubborn, cowardly adults unwilling to stand up against the gun lobby and those who support it.” In my view, this woman’s pain gives her a pass to say pretty much whatever she wants. Making her anger a central message of such a sizable journalistic undertaking, though, raises questions about whether gun-control backers are just as prone to invective and conspiracy talk as their least responsible foes. Dispassionate analysis would serve everyone better.

Paul Barrett
September 30, 2013
Guns, Children and Accidents: Four Blunt Points
[Yes. Dispassionate analysis would serve everyone better. But that would have near zero chance of resulting in more gun control. And the people at the New York Times almost certainly realize this. Therefore, it’s not going to happen anytime soon. They are so committed to more gun control it is an extremely difficult psychological burden to reverse course. They would rather tens of thousands would die and the rights of millions of people be infringed than risk having to admit they were wrong.

Draw your own conclusions about their moral character and capability for rational thought.—Joe]

4 thoughts on “Quote of the day—Paul Barrett

  1. Paul Barrett is a journalist too, is he not? He should know better than to ever suggest that a reporter pick a boring, dispassionate quote. He wouldn’t pick someone’s quote who says “Gosh! I don’t know what I think!” because it adds nothing to the story.

    The word “quoteworthy” means something that is worth quoting. Dispassionate is great if you are quoting a government official but a grieving mother is entitled to her passion — and that is more quoteworthy.

      • She is the sympathetic face of the program, just as the fatally ill wife in “Ich Klage An” (1941) was the sympathetic face of the eugenics program in Germany to get rid of “useless eaters” in the 30’s and 40’s.
        Pick the face and the sympathetic story carefully, and who can argue against it until it’s too late?

  2. I was less kind to the Times.

    “Apparently since the Navy Yard shooting has mysteriously dropped off the media radar (because the perpetrator was a mentally-ill Prius-driving Obama supporter – but I repeat myself – who didn’t use an AR-15, but rather a Joe Biden-approved 12 gauge shotgun and a handgun he took off a security guard) the New York Times has fallen back on a more reliable drum to beat – one made from the skins of dead children. Just not ones from Chicago.”

Comments are closed.