27-09-2009, 01:19 PM
I find it interesting that I know so little about the Pat Tillman death. What I mean is it was a big story, but the stories were segmented far apart, and very non-blanket covered. There would be elements here then nothing for months then elements there.
Why does it matter? Was Tillman killed because he was really beginning to become a threat to go public with his opposition to the war? To what extent was he really going public over policy?
Some will think this is about media celebrity. To my thinking it is and it isn't. Somebody like Tillman would have been able to generate media access precisely because of who he was. Hence if he was murdered because of this threat of media access with dissent, it could be epistomologically significant and worth my time at least.
Do you think that Tillman was really becoming a threat to go public in opposition to the policies? Also how about the way this story was fragmentation-"covered"?
Why does it matter? Was Tillman killed because he was really beginning to become a threat to go public with his opposition to the war? To what extent was he really going public over policy?
Some will think this is about media celebrity. To my thinking it is and it isn't. Somebody like Tillman would have been able to generate media access precisely because of who he was. Hence if he was murdered because of this threat of media access with dissent, it could be epistomologically significant and worth my time at least.
Do you think that Tillman was really becoming a threat to go public in opposition to the policies? Also how about the way this story was fragmentation-"covered"?