More media on the Channon Christian-Chris Newsom murders

An insightful column by Cleveland Plainer Dealer columnist Ted Diadiun on Knoxville’s Channon Christian and Chris Newsom murders and the media coverage of their horrific deaths.
Tags: | | | |

4 Replies to “More media on the Channon Christian-Chris Newsom murders”

  1. You never did explain why you felt Charlie Daniels was “seeding lies and nurturing hate”. You just said Mr. Daniels was “wrong”. Yet he wasn’t.
    Many people see either a political correctness or a fear of enabling hate groups as the reason this has not been reported to the level of other stories. Those are the two logical conclusions. Neither is consistent with good journalism.
    What about the Wichita Massacre? This story is not the only under-reported story of black on white horrific crime. Two cases do not make a trend, but how many others are out there?
    Your finding another “journalist” who is also in denial doesn’t make your original case saying Charlie Daniels should be “ashamed”.
    It looks as if you are trying to justify your earlier post about Charlie Daniels. A simple apology would have been the better choice.
    Suggested reading:
    http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2007/05/14/media-blackout-on-christian-newsom-murders/

  2. You and I are so far apart, there is no point in arguing.
    Even the prosecutors say Charlie Daniels has got it wrong:
    Similarly, claims made over the Internet that the couple were sexually mutilated are “absolutely not true,” John Gill, special assistant to District Attorney Randy Nichols, said Friday.
    — AP report by one of its Knoxville-based reporters.
    That claim was made in Daniels’ post.
    And while he specifically took the Tennessean and The New York Times to task, he is all inclusive when he says “Shame on the American media for letting such a violent crime as this slip through the cracks.”
    That’s totally inclusive. That doesn’t say “national” or “big media” or “Left Wing” or Left Coast” or “Coastal” or whatever. It says “American media.”
    The American media where the story is a local story have certainly heavily covered it. If anyone wants info about the crimes, it isn’t be hard to find. It’s still front page and 6 o’clock news where it happened four months after the murder.
    Yes, he is spreading misformation. Intentionally or unintentionally, the effect is the same.

  3. The specific and horrible details of the time Channon and Christoper were alive and being held captive do not negate what Mr. Daniels said. You are using an absolutist strategy to defend your position. You are also mistaken on the time line.
    Since there has been so little reporting available outside that of the News Sentinel and local television is it so difficult to understand that key specifics are difficult to ascertain? You seem to have no concern for the position Mr. Daniels is in pertaining to the serious things you have accused him of.
    For example, had the results of the autopsies be made public at the time Mr. Daniels made his post on May the 7th? Specifically, was it know from the autopsies whether the charges of mutilation were true?
    Weren’t Special Assistant District Attorney John Gill’s statements on these specifics of mutilation made after Mr. Daniels made his post?
    Wasn’t this statement from Mr. Gill, “claims made over the Internet that the couple were sexually mutilated are absolutely not true” made on Friday May 18th? This would be almost a week and a half after Mr. Daniels made his post.
    Your charge Mr. Daniels is spreading misinformation is over the line. Aren’t you implying intent? Why would you do that?
    In regard to your other argument, Mr. Daniels is clearly referring to the Main Stream Media which neither the News Sentinel, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, or the local Knoxville TV stations are a member of. Again your absolutist defense is frayed.
    Of course we are far apart on this Mr. Lail. You have said things about a good man that don’t make sense. You have made unfair implications. I hope you will reexamine your position and ask yourself how you would feel if this happened to you. I disagree with your current position as I am sure Mr. Daniels does.

  4. I would have thought two of the 100 largest U.S. newspapers would be part –albeit small — of most definitions of mainstream media.
    I would have thought that television stations in a Top 100 U.S. market would have been mainstream media.
    I guess I have no concept of what is meant by the term “mainstream media.”

Comments are closed.