LogFAQs > #952837590

Zeus posted...

Did you ask yourself why journalists would have a vested interest in concealing the man's identity? And why tabloids in particular wouldn't want to post salacious supporting information like photos of the man and his daughter?

I answered both of those questions in the post you quoted. Please try to keep up.

Zeus posted...

If they wanted to respect the matter, they likely wouldn't mention it at all.

Unless they wanted to keep the public informed of interesting and/or significant goings-on within the nation's legislative system. Which, you know, is why journalism exists. How shocking.

Zeus posted...

odd when a wannabe tabloid writer somehow thinks it's obvious that something is withheld despite binging enough tablets to know that the fact it's being withheld is actually pretty f***ing weird

I think you might be giving Duckbear too much credit to presume him capable of understanding such nuance. That's a little more higher-level thinking than he usually demonstrates.

Zeus posted...

particularly since it limits their clickbait.

Clickbait's in the headline, which almost never publishes names unless it's an ongoing story involving somebody particularly well-known. Not publishing the name doesn't limit the article's clickbait potential at all, because by the time the reader finds out that the name isn't in there, they've already clicked on it (see: your presence in this topic, which did not mention his name in the title). That, and "NY dad suing feds because they won't let him marry his daughter" has about all the clickbait potential any headline can have.

---

This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.