I'm doing that on purpose because I'd like to avoid adding web stats/traffic/attention for a certain group of kooks in the midwest who disrupt the end-of-life services for deceased vets.
Readers are probably familiar with this issue, but in case they aren't, read this non-searchable article by Annie Zelm from last week's Register:
I don't know about you, but I can't imagine a more emotionally torturous activity than shouting what these people shout at a funeral. Their behavior is abhorrent, but as Annie says: To ask the law to distinguish between what they say and how they say it puts our freedom of expression at risk. Society must battle these nutcases in a much smarter way than to fall back on the government who would undoubtedly do more harm than good in this situation. These kooks are thriving on the attention, and as Annie says, the media coverage adds flame to this group's exposure. Can this topic be discussed without giving them any attention?
I bet it can.
If this story didn't fit into the mainstream media's unspoken, unwritten agenda which, as a top priority is "deliver a great story line" the story would be deprived of oxygen and disappear from headlines forever. With no attention, attention-whores die off. Unfortunately, too many in the media maintain the philosophy that as long as they are not directly affected by the kook's behavior, this story must be covered! The media routinely overlooks storylines that damage their favored political candidates, so why can't they ignore these nutcases?
(No keywords in comments, please!)