Throwing mud on the newly dead
Reader comment on: Remembering Stephen Solarz
Submitted by Alan Abbey (Israel), Nov 30, 2010 09:42
I think Ira Stoll raises a legitimate point about the "revolving door," but is a first-day obit the place to do it?
The Times piece does go into one of the reasons for Solarz's departure from the House, his and his wife's bad checks at the House bank. Surely, that's small change in light of today's congressional financial scandals. The WaPost mentions Solarz's lobbying.
As a former journalist and now blogger who is going to track obituaries online (do a Google search on my name in a few days - or write me for the link) it is an interesting question: How much mud do you drag over a new grave? At the midsized daily newspaper I once worked for we generally gave a pass on flinging mud in an obit. But this is a different age. Is anything, ever sacred?
Does a "boilerplate" mention of a previous scandal merit mention in the obit, unless it was the sole reason for the person's notoriety in the first place? I don't have a definitive answer and would love to see more commentary on this.
Note: Comments are moderated by the editor and are subject to editing.
Other reader comments on this item
|⇒ Throwing mud on the newly dead [183 words]||Alan Abbey||Nov 30, 2010 09:42|
|↔ Mud? [29 words]||James||Nov 30, 2010 21:17|
Comment on this item