Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarah_Jayne
I'm confused by what you just said. In order for something to be a character study of a person they have to be interviewed themselves?
|
not at all. but that's not what they did. they attempted to do a psychological profile (different from a character study) to explain a bomber, based on observations of events and 3rd party interviews of people's interpretations of him and events; all couched in some sort of "we did this so we can all understand* reasoning.
yet the article didn't really help me understand why that kid looked women and children in the eyes and laid a bomb down at their feet then unflinchingly walked away as the bomb exploded, killed and maimed.
that said, i don't really have a problem with them running that story. i don't think they should try and portray it as an expose though, it's not really. it's certainly not one of their better crafted articles, the mccrystal article will blow your mind, not just because of what it exposes, but of how well it is written. i actually started a thread here about that article i was so moved by it.
tbh, it seems to me, that the picture generated the story.
it's just a weak as a cover story imo. so many better and more compelling cover stories for them to pursue. heck, i just gave them 2 terrific story ideas just talking out of my ass in this thread!
