Comments on: Waiting for the other shoe to drop

By: Thomas

Thomas — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 21:02:00 +0000

Well, that’s nice Mark. You trade in trashy rumors and then have the gall to point the finger at other websites. Yikes. At least we have a confession that you’re not respectable. What’s the appropriate description for your page now?

By: Anonymous Jim

Anonymous Jim — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 20:41:16 +0000

My vote is careless editing. I think the picture and the caption were provided by AP. For truly careless editing, check this out: http://www.christianpost.com/article/20061005/25019.htm Same picture and caption but (unless you click to enlarge) the other congressman is not even in the picture. So if the Globe is sending coded messages to us, they were scooped by two weeks by the Christian Post.

By: trotsky

trotsky — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 17:08:29 +0000

Anyone who wastes 15 seconds speculating about the motives of AP editors or the coded messages they may be sending in their stock wire photos needs to go outside and breathe some of the brisk fall air.
Seriously, it’s a good old, emotion-rich pic of Foley, and that’s all there is it to it.

By: Laertes

Laertes — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 16:32:41 +0000

The rules are different now. A live girl the day after someone gets caught with a live boy IS a scandal, because the two stories become one story.

By: neil

neil — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 15:40:17 +0000

I thought that you had to be caught with either a live boy or a dead girl for it to be a scandal. So unless someone produces a body, I don’t see this one making much of an impact.
Now if it’s actually John Shimkus, chairman of the House Page Board, who’s been dipping into the kiddie pool, that would probably ignite a new wave of major scandal. I hasten to add that I’ve heard no rumors that it was him — he’s just the only congressman for whom I think this allegation would ignite a fiery national scandal. Well, maybe if it was Nancy Pelosi…
(If you want to delete my comment for containing names then so be it, but I repeat that this is not speculation.)

By: Cryptic Ned

Cryptic Ned — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 15:04:41 +0000

The other guy in that photograph is a pretty obscure congressman, who recently became the son-in-law of one of Latin America’s most brutal dictators.

By: npm

npm — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 14:28:52 +0000

Maybe a journalist can answer this: How much interaction is there between the photo and news department? My uneducated guess is that they needed a photo with certain proportions and that leaving the second member made it more visually interesting.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 14:27:07 +0000

Or, the same journalistic ethics that caused a major network to run a scandal based on false documents right before the 2004 election.

By: Steve

Steve — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 14:26:39 +0000

Or, the same journalistic ethics that caused a major network to run a scandal based on false documents right before the 2004 election.

By: Barry

Barry — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 13:32:20 +0000

“But what’s left of journalistic ethics keeps them from naming names unless and until the scandal breaks. ”
Hmmmm. That’s the sort of ‘journalistic ethics’ which caused people to sit on stories until after the November, 2004 election?

By: wren

wren — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 11:48:47 +0000

Don’t have a name for you but can guarantee that if there is another name and he’s a Democrat, Karl would have wasted no time leaking it to his talk radio pals.