AN OIL HEATER REPAIRMAN was shot and killed not far from the Temple campus on Wednesday evening.Police have no suspects for the murder of Carl Tomberlain, which occurred near 18th and Norris Streets.
The Inquirer story in Friday's paper had these details:
In 1992, Tomberlain was sentenced to three to six years in prison in a multivehicle DUI accident on I-95 in Bucks County that left a 21-year-old woman dead on Nov. 13, 1991.
He also was awaiting a preliminary hearing for an arrest on an assault charge last month, details of which were not immediately available late yesterday afternoon.
Tomberlain was the victim, not the perpetrator, right? So why do we need these facts? Are the reporters hinting at something? Do they suspect that the victim was up to no good?
Is this negligent journalism or is this simply presenting as many facts as possible?
6 comments:
The facts are not relevant to the story at hand. Even if one were to argue that the journalist who wrote this story was giving all the facts, these 2 facts have nothing to do with the insides of the story. The question is how this man was killed, and these facts do not help us get any closer to knowing.
Enea said...
They are telling us two different incidents but they cannot relate them.
I don't know if it's negligent journalism. I think that the writer is just getting all of the facts out. I don't think it's necessary to put that information out because it has nothing to do with him getting killed. I think the writer was just looking to write a very good article with a little suspense and drama. It's not necessary.
Andrew Lecointe
Stories like this perpetuate the assumption that Philadelphians are all felons and killers. Telling the victim's rap sheet has nothing to do with the fact that an innocent man was shot needlessly, and it does nothing to improve the image of North Philadelphia. You might as well put a sign up at the PHiladelphia border proclaiming, "Welcome to Philly, where even the victims are criminals!"
The Editor wanted to deflate my Brothers murder by adding his record that had nothing at all to do with him being shot.
i don't think it was relevant to mention the things he's done in the past. by doing that it seems that the media is saying he deserved what he got because of his past criminal activity. that was totally irrelevant to his death
Post a Comment