Reading Kathleen Parker’s Dec. 9 column (“True journalism or ratings spike?”), it is clear that she thinks the way Ferguson was handled was wrong. But it is hard to tell what she thinks would have been the right way.

What is clear is that she has no interest in some of the questions that have arisen:

 Why didn’t Officer Darren Wilson consider using a stun gun instead of his revolver? (Answer: He didn’t carry a stun gun; it would have been “uncomfortable.”)

 Why didn’t Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon appoint an independent special prosecutor, a common practice in cases like this, rather than leaving the case in the hands of Robert McCulloch, someone likely to have a bias for the police? (McCulloch’s policeman father was killed in the line of duty, and he works alongside local police all the time.)

 Why did McCulloch cross-examine grand jury witnesses who questioned the police version of events, but not those who supported the police? Why, contrary to normal practice in grand jury hearings, did he have Wilson testify?

 Why are young black men in America so much more likely to be killed by police than young white men?

In one sentence, Ms. Parker glancingly admits that “(Al) Sharpton may well have a legitimate role in shining a light on racial injustice.” But mainly she’s offended by “the intensity of interest,” which she sees as “in no small part driven by certain media outlets and ‘journalists’ such as the agenda-driven Rev. Al.”

The phrasing, and the attitude, echo the old notion from civil rights days that everything would be just fine if “outside agitators” would stay away. Maybe Ms. Parker would like us to go back to the “good old days,” when blacks could be killed without anyone raising a fuss.

Neil Gallagher

Brunswick