Last night I received an e-mail from a gentleman in response to my “Media Mangle” article, “The Good Bombmaker,” which critiqued The News & Observer over its reporting about a teenager who is being investigated for building pipe bombs. Here is his feedback:
Having known the Brown family now for about five years, by their active volunteering in Boy Scouts and by working with Greg Brown, he?s not what you are thinking by the tone of your August 12th article. Believe it or not, he is an independent thinking conservative and a dedicated Rush (Limbaugh) listener. Good thing the N&O didn?t pick-up on that. He runs his own business. He of course will do what he must to protect his son, so no explanation is needed for his view.
You are absolutely on the mark with your comments about the N&O and their level of reporting. They did just take Greg Brown’s words and made it their article. They are biased in favor of Jarrett Brown in this case for some reason. They believe this is some kind of fight against the new anti-terrorist laws the legislators passed and have a political agenda to reverse them.
I see this as a mean-spirited political game by the prosecutors to do the same thing the N&O is after. They are playing with Jarrett?s future. I hope the judge brings some fairness to the case at [today]?s hearing.
I do not know who is involved yet, or what their values are, but something doesn?t make sense here. The prosecution is pressing totally inappropriate charges against a most youthful 17-year-old. These laws are in place to be used as a tool against terrorists, not the general public, not even the common criminal.
Jarrett has committed two crimes, and he is admitting to them: 1) Leaving the scene of property damage he did with his car, 2) Making and having possession of pipe bombs made of copper pipe filled with shotgun powder and a fuse. For proper justice, he needs to be charged by the prosecution for these crimes. Instead they go after him as a terrorist with weapons of mass destruction? Give me a break. They can?t win a conviction with that, there is no training, no hate, no bully, no organization, no victim, and the ?bombs? are lousy; made of soft metals.
So what is the prosecutor?s agenda? What would the charges have been back in early 2001? How about 1950?
Once you meet and get to know Jarrett, you?d know why the excuses are flying. Some teens are more advanced than their age and operate like adults; Jarrett is the opposite. Academically he does well and works to impress everyone around him, maybe too much. He is kind of naive socially, more the way a younger kid acts. Peer pressure is important to him still, thus the orange hair, etc.
He is not an edgy personality. He made the pipe bombs to impress his buddies. Nothing more, nothing less. It?s very bad, but it?s not terrorism.
