Assassination or Assisted Suicide?

[UltraBudgie]

Right now I'm still leaning towards the opinion that the Pelosi thing is a red herring. I'm imaging, as soon as something newsey breaks, a team of back-room political spinners brainstorming how can we make hay of this. Pelosi is a hate-trigger, polarizing, every time I've heard mention of her in conversation it devolves into silly partisan lines, precludes going beyond the surface of things, entrenches the idea of one part of the system being corrupt in a shallow way and the other really disapproving. That seems like a trap. Not saying she's not opportunistically trading or whatever, but I doubt she'll ever be pinned to the wall for it. Too clever, she's probably doing nothing illegal, she's of the class that makes the laws not the one that's really afraid of them.

Here is the NYT not wanting this guy to become a folk hero:

Internal New York Times messages about its coverage of alleged gunman Luigi Mangione have been leaked to me and the contents are revealing. On Tuesday, management said “the news value and public service of showing his face is diminishing,” instructing staff to “dial back” its use of such photos. It also directed that Luigi’s “manifesto” not be published in the paper.

The directive was heeded. If you visit Times’ front-page story today on the shooter, it features Mangione’s back as he was being marched to his arraignment in Altoona, Pennsylvania. Another Times story today on Mangione’s notebook features a photo of a generic police-tape barricade.

This is media paternalism at its worst, the idea that seeing the shooter’s face too much, or reading his 262-word statement, will necessarily inspire copy-cat assassinations and should therefore be withheld from the public....

The Times justification, according to the chat, is that photographs and words might have the effect of "amplifying the crime and inspiring others," as reporter Andy Newman said. Besides the New York Times' inflated view of its ability to de-amplify a crime that practically everyone is already talking about, the internal chat sheds light on the other arguably bigger reason the media shies away from disclosure: its fear of antagonizing the sources it relies upon for scoops. "My source asked last nite that we not publish the whole thing," reporter Andy Newman wrote in the Times chat.

By donning the “public safety” hat, the major media is in effect deputizing itself as a branch of the national security state. Beat reporters always find themselves in a bind, not wanting to imperil their access to the law enforcement and intelligence sources that furnish them with inside material. The government then plays favorites by leaking to news media reporters who act as compliant deputies, those who parrot whatever the government line is. The end result is a manifesto that half a dozen major media outlets have but not a single one is willing to publish.

https://www.kenklippenstein.com/p/ny-tim...-mangiones

The one thing that I find they may plausibly fear is the peasantry realizing they outnumber the ruling class. Thus the push to make it about political, cultural, or whatever issues that divide the populace in opinion. Right-wing incel?