Bear with me for a moment and check out the beginning portion of a potential feature on former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, revolutionary for his use of policy analysis in his post and controversial for his role in the Vietnam War:

—

“At 5:15 one afternoon last week,” TIME wrote on Nov 12, 1965, “Norman Morrison, 31, his clothing doused in kerosene and his youngest child, 18-month-old Emily, cradled in his arms, stood outside the river entrance to the Pentagon and burned himself to death.”

He was a war protester, this Morrison.  This was the unraveling of the public debate, from marching to self-immolation.  This was the polarization that, no matter his intention, Robert McNamara, the Secretary of Defense under Presidents Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, contributed to an increasingly fractured public during America’s most divisive war, clouding a unique résumé that made him one of the most fascinating men to hold the post.

McNamara’s managerial and analytical brilliance was indisputable.  As the eventual star of the “Whiz Kids”, a group of post-World War II ex-military that ascended Ford Motor Company’s executive ladder and righted the ship, he displayed a first-class aptitude for organizational capability, becoming the corporation’s president in 1960.  Although the Kennedy administration soon targeted him to head the Department of the Treasury, McNamara, despite his lack of military command, was recommended by Truman’s Secretary of Defense, Robert A. Lovett, for the same post.

“Mr. President, it’s absurd.  I’m not qualified,” McNamara humbly told Kennedy.   ”Look, Bob,” the president replied, “I don’t think there’s any school for Presidents either.”

McNamara was a rare figure in the administration—one of the few men who had John Kennedy’s ear in matters of national security, initially evidenced by his involvement in the backroom dealings of the Cuban Missile Crisis.  As such, his role as a policymaker was legitimized, leading him to cut waste, carve out a more efficient department and establish new guidelines for nuclear warfare.  In fact, it was McNamara who first clarified the once prevalent concept of “mutual assured destruction” (MAD).

However, his name would forever be etched in controversy for his authority in the planning and execution of the Vietnam War, colloquially known by many as “McNamara’s War”—blame that would trouble him in the years following his service.

…

What about it?  Are we on point in assessing that this is the type of story the obituary reader, whether intense or more fleeting in her interests, wants to read?

One of the main criticisms that stood out was regarding our concept of an editorial page, a potential section on Legacy.com that will include articles and editorials by a staff journalist, links to Associated Press obituaries, links to interesting obituaries from other newspapers like the New York Times and perhaps a section on who died on this day in history. It would involve mostly obituaries of prominent people, but not necessarily.

We developed this idea from the perspective that there is some journalistic value to the obituary form that needs to be pointed out. However, a problem has come to our attention that the audiences that come to Legacy.com are vastly different. Some come because they are grieving for a loved one, some come to search for someone not so close to them who died, and others come to read interesting obituaries.

Would the first two groups find such a section offensive? Two of the people we spoke to, thought so. One employee from the department of comparative literature at Northwestern University didn’t understand why this section should even be included on the site. It’s a distraction for her, because if she is there, she is visiting for a specific purpose that’s likely not to read interesting obituaries. A section on historical deaths is kind of gimmicky, she also said. Another employee from the department of geology thought that a section like this is kind of creepy, kind of like “featuring deaths” in a similar way to previews of movies in theaters.

This is only the opinion of two people, but the big issue we are faced with now is whether to maintain this section as part of the main Legacy site, or to suggest creating a new website intended entirely for a non-grieving audience interested in well-written, interesting obituaries. If we do maintain this as part of the main page, is there a differnce between featuring an article about Ted Kennedy versus Farah Fawcett for example? It’s a decision that so far hasn’t been easy to make.