Tuesday, May 31, 2005

Lazy reporters and the West Memphis 3

As the WM3 "awareness day" comes closer and closer, more and more sloppy journalists will be writing about Damien Echols and the other two convicted child killers who have garnered so much sympathy from folks. Here's another reason to think that the three are guilty: supporters are using disproved statements to argue against the trio's guilt.

Take, for instance, this piece that allows Damien to claim he never drank anyone's blood, when it has been documented that he has.

Or this piece by the Guardian that claims that Jessie Misskelly was questioned for 12 hours before he confessed: that is completely untrue.

Lazy, lazy reporters will keep selling lies, half-truths and stereotypes as long as people let them.

EDIT: Here's a news report with more misinformation, ripped apart by people who think Damien is guilty.


Anonymous Daniel said...

Just playing the devil's advocate:

"Sucked blood" and "Drank blood" have two different meanings. When someone cuts their finger and sucks the blood off the skin to avoid getting it everywhere, that's a far different case and intent than drinking someone's blood.

Personally, I think you'd have to be silly to put someone else's blood anywhere near your mouth. But that in and of itself does not mean the person is capable of a triple homicide.

7:55 PM  
Blogger The Bookhouse Boy said...

That is exactly the kind of logic argument that gives WM3 supporters such weak arguments. While no, there is not a direct relationship between consuming other people's blood and homicide, it's also not "silly."

11:24 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home