huh?

Last week, a young boy was killed when an airplane slid off the runway at Midway airport. Very sad. Anyway, I was wasting time reading news online when I came across an article on the incident. The following is an excerpt:

"The Boeing 737-700 slammed through a fence and onto a busy street, killing Joshua Woods as he rode with his family while singing a Christmas carol. Joshua, who had just gone to McDonald's, became the nation's first person to be killed in a crash involving a large airliner in more than four years..."

Knowing that I'm one of those annoying folks who analyzes media content (yes, I'm a complete cynic), can you guess what I might comment on?

Two things. First, the incident itself was very tragic without playing rhetorical games. While singing a Christmas carol? Of what value is this added detail? No seriously, I'd like to know because I'm just not getting it. Is this simply a blatently obvious attempt to evoke emotion towards the victim, or does this actually pertain to this tragedy? Seems a bit obvious to me.

Second, and this is what really got me, is the mention of McDonald's. Huh? Unless there was a direct correlation between eating at McDonald's and getting hit by airplanes (while singing Christmas carols), this tidbit of information is completely out of place and un-necessary. I'm really curious as to the author's motives. I assure you, this article is in no way about fast food, franchises, or any other sort of eateries. So, why in the world make such a reference? Has the media become so corrupt that they'd actually let companies buy mentions such as this that are so obviously and completely out of context?