Treason is a serious charge. Even the accusation, accurate or not, can ruin lives. The byproduct of the accusation is the damage done to the families, friends and associates of the accused. As such the media bears a certain responsibility to be circumspect in who they link to the alleged crime.
      If indeed Gadahn has behaved treasonably he would deserve whatever punishment was doled out. There are ways to avoid it such as renouncing your citizenship. If you do the crime, you do the time.
      The problem is potentially innocent people are being included in the story.
       Pearlman has no link to the story. There is no reason whatsoever to include her in it. She could provide nothing but a sound bite. What about the story needed her to be brought into it? Is she somehow a terrorist? Has she behaved in treasonous fashion? Did she contribute to his decision? Yet people will link her to Gadahn in a negative light simply because Marquez felt compelled to include her in it as declining comment.
   Does not her declining indicate a reason to distance herself from the situation? She is not quoted as a source, she is not relied on for information, she is not a suspect but still he will give her that guilt by association. Nice work. 
       And people wonder why some of us look askance at newspapers when issues of credibility arise.

Be Sociable, Share!