Aaron Hernandez's "Gay Prison Lover"

So, I bit on clickbait.

I mean, why not, it's Aaron Hernandez? Between the fact it's a for-them-to-prove-but-they-say-so suicide, and he's reasonably good-looking, this story has gotten way more press than I'd imagine it should. Then, Instinct Magazine decides to reprint something the gossip rag The Daily Mail put out: he wrote a suicide note to a gay, in-prison lover.

They're seriously quoting The Daily Mail as a legitimate source? Seriously?! That's like quoting The National Enquirer (RIP).

Most serious press, if they say "sources say" and they've established themselves with journalistic integrity, they can get a pass. More than likely they're keeping the source anonymous for the source's well-being. When The Daily Mail says it?

Well, it could be hogwash.

Expected Sensationalism?

Okay, so I'm going through my tweet stream today and saw this, a re-tweet someone I follow had done of someone he follows, who in turn had quote tweeted a news station's tweet.

Seeing this, I really wanted to reply to her. The way I'd interpreted what she'd said was that the article doesn't mention the fact the couple had arms during their campaign. I read the article and midway down it was explicit to that they did have arms.

I decided to not reply because I'd thought about it and reinterpreted it to probably mean the actual tweet contents before the link. I read what others replied and some had the same initial interpretation I did, some the second, and the rest had some other interesting things to say.

There were, of course, those who applauded the fact the couple got a conviction. This I can understand. Being passionate about a cause is something, but possibly endangering others is definitely controversial.

Some derided the couple's racism. Yes, race more than likely factored into this ("more than likely" because it's just the one article, and I haven't taken in enough information, nor was I there, for me to say "this is racist", even though it does have hallmarks of it).

Some called the ABC affiliate racist for a few reasons. The one that seemed to peek out was the headline seeming to indicate "racial slurs" as the motivating factor for the conviction. It very well could have been, and the fact the couple had arms was an aggravating factor in the severity of the conviction. They thought the station should have put the "armed" part first, or instead of, "racial slurs". I'm just receiving these facts third-hand, so I can't make that kind of judgment. Some cite the reasoning as clickbait. Either way, people are going to click on it.

There are even some who say the station is racist and is enabling others the repliers call racist to use this as ammunition for their own messages.

Some, naturally, blamed Donald Trump, because that's apparently what people do: no matter who's the president there's blame on the president. I didn't vote for him, but he's the president, and God's sovereign. I leave it up to God.

In my mind racial slurs or Confederate flags sound less sensational than guns. Maybe the birthday party part is more sensational? I don't even know. Lately I've been more taking in things without really reacting to them.

But some can't.