|Where's this annoying internet prick|
when you need him?
Do I even have to mention why we know who Elizabeth Smart is? If you actually don't know her story, well there's a million articles about her on the Internet. At any rate, while Elizabeth Smart is still an advocate for missing children and apparently works with ABC news, but that doesn't mean she's allowing those same media hounds she works for abuse her. Now don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of her politics or anyone who pushes for poorly crafted laws (and NAMED laws are a pet peeve of mine), and her daddy, Ed Smart, works way too closely with the controversial Mark Lunsford. But I have to admit there are times I respect her. Like that time she owned media whore Nancy Disgrace on her own show:
Anyone who puts Nancy in her place wins points in my book. I still don't like many of the things she advocated but she made Disgrace look, well, disGRACEful. This hasn't stopped the media from reminding both Miss Smart and the rest of us she's a "Former Kidnapping Victim for the 1,835,799,225,456th time. It was a decade ago, the man responsible was tried and convicted and will never be free again, and this woman moved on with her life for the most part. It doesn't help to see every article about her start off like this:
It is the media who can't seem to let go. Is it fair for Elizabeth Smart to have her wedding plans changed because of the media frenzy for "Former kidnap victim Elizabeth Smart"? I think not. A large number of comments must've exploded the Reuters article since it keeps showing me error screens, but here are a few comments I copied:
How about they quit referring to her as the Former Kidnap Victim? We all know what happened, just call her by her name. Glad to hear she's getting everything back to normal, wish her the best
How about, "Elizabeth Smart marries in Hawaii"?
That's pathetic media leave this poor girl alone. She can't have a private moment she's trying to move on from what happened to her. She doesn't need the media constantly reminding her of it.
The whole world knows about Elizabeth Smart's kidnapping years ago. This article is suppose to be her WEDDING DAY! WHY does this person reporting the WEDDING open this article with: "Elizabeth Smart, who was kidnap at age 14 from her Utah home and held for what she described as (nine months of hell)" and start the article like this: ELIZABETH SMART EXCHANGED VOWS ON SATURDAY..........Just write the WEDDING CELEBRATION without any mention of her kidnapping. Poor lady. When are they going to leave her kidnapping part of her life and concentrate on the present. I suppose, when she'll have her first baby and announce of it's coming into the world, they'll start the article with her kidnapping again. MEDIA/REPORTERS, leave that episode of her life when writing about her!!! Don't keep reminding her of the KIDNAPPING!!!!
Shameful news coverage Reuters and Yahoo. Respect her privacy. "...media attention that was growing "increasingly invasive"
The media should just call her Elizabeth Smart, her name, rather than introducing her as the girl who was kidnaped and raped, Elizabeth Smart. Reminding her about what happened every time there is news about her is probably not the best feeling in the world.
She changed her wedding plans to avoid a media frenzy and STILL these a**holes hound her every move. Let her be already.