Mumbles
Philosopher
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2008
- Messages
- 8,726
It would be accurate if he were actually emotional or even slightly normal about it (as a better example, see...any candidate on the democratic side), instead of a wooden, plainly insincere reading of something that had been written by someone on his staff as a pathetic attempt at damage control. I watched it (I rarely listen to him, since he typically veers from bigotry to emoting to gibbering, often with much walking around like he thinks he just said something incredibly intelligent). And no, I would not say that he actually "urged" anything in that speech.
No, he read a short part about "unity vs. racism" - and then read a lot about "our culture of violence" (notwithstanding the many times he has actually urged people to beat up protestors) and "mental health" (never mind how he urged republicans to take away mental health care access for many Americans).
If you want to see presidents who actually urge unity in the face of tragedy, both GWB and especially Obama were very good at this at various points when the need arose - shootings, terror attacks, natural disasters.
I realize that headline writers are often the lowest-ranked person in the newsroom, and whip up something that the editing team wants, rather than the article writer, but this is important, because many people only read the headline, and possibly the first paragraph, of a news article. So a misleading headline (and it was definitely misleading) can leave many people with a false impression of what happened. People should read more than the headline, sure - but they often don't.
and they are very much part of the "editing team." Multiple people, probably including the managing editor, had to sign off on that headline. Then they rethought it and came up with "Assailing Hate, But Not Guns" for later editions. It happens; you strike a note that you think is OK, then have second thoughts.
