Thanksgiving is only a few days away, so it’s probably a really good time to debate whether or not political reporters should continue covering Alvin Greene, the very weird man who managed to win the Democratic primary race for the South Carolina Senate race.
Greene subsequently lost that race, because a) he was the Democratic nominee in South Carolina in 2010 and b) in repeated media appearances, he failed to make even a lick of sense. Also compounding Greene’s problems were a spotty military record that suggested he lacked a certain degree of competence and legal troubles stemming from that time he allegedly showed a pornographic image to a University of South Carolina co-ed, earning Greene felony obscenity charges.
Greene subsequently lost that race, because a) he was the Democratic nominee in South Carolina in 2010 and b) in repeated media appearances, he failed to make even a lick of sense. Also compounding Greene’s problems were a spotty military record that suggested he lacked a certain degree of competence and legal troubles stemming from that time he allegedly showed a pornographic image to a University of South Carolina co-ed, earning Greene felony obscenity charges.
Since his predictable defeat in the South Carolina Senate race, Greene has told reporters that he has presidential ambitions that are even less credible than his senatorial ones. And so now, we have a debate, on Twitter, between Slate’s Dave Weigel — who believes that Greene is a “troubled guy” who the media should just leave alone, and Politico’s Jake Sherman who says “we should cover candidates for federal office thoroughly and fairly.”
For Sherman’s benefit, here’s the fair and thorough way to cover Alvin Greene, going forward: “Alvin Greene is not a credible candidate for President, or any other public office.” Politico can have that sentence, for free, and it will forever prove to be sufficient for all manner of Alvin Greene coverage.
No comments:
Post a Comment