Can someone please explain why Larkin is, as her own recorded "interviews" seem to indicate, so friendly with Maura Murray's father, Fred? I mean, despite her choice of "Guerrilla Ontologist" as a moniker, she strikes me as an intelligent, principled, and polite person; certainly way more than most people who discuss Maura Murray's disappearance.
By comparison... As much as I think Maggie Freleng has soiled the reputation of pseudo-journalism, Freleng, at least compared to Larkin, keeps her distance from the person she's - I was going to say interviewing, but that's not quite the right word - talking to in apparently informed terms.
But Larkin makes no such pretense. Don't get me wrong. I truly like Larkin, which is why I'm so puzzled by her behavior. She's generally a credit to clear thinking - when she wants to be. But when it comes to Fred and his daughter's disappearance, it's like she's lost her objectivity compass. She just seems to cozy right up to him, indulge him, not actually question him like Freleng did.
What we have here IMO is a smart, level-headed interviewer like Larkin cuddling up to Fred while a confused and poorly informed yahoo like Freleng really acts like a reporter and correctly maintains her professional distance. Is this not entirely backwards?
It's not hard to see why Fred might have wanted to talk to Larkin, who's a UMass alum, near Maura's age, a runner (former UMass track team member, no less), and obviously sympathetic to Fred. Almost a substitute daughter.
I could be wrong, but IIRC Larkin even admitted that her questions were submitted in writing before she actually even met Fred. Presumably, Larkin knows how that looks.
So... I can only wonder whether she's keeping Fred in the dark by play-acting out these absurd Haverhill police and local dirtbag conspiracy theories with him. Seriously. I cannot believe she doesn't know better. She must. Yet she spoon-feeds Fred total tripe.
How come? And, more importantly, how come nobody else asks why?
No comments:
Post a Comment