Reflections From a Murky Pond

It’s been obvious to Americans for some time that the putrid dregs of what is left of journalism in our country no longer deserving of either the name or the constitutional protections what it devolved from were guaranteed.

Sadly for America but happily for the lamestream media, actual rights aren’t dependent upon merit so we can’t just eradicate the bulk of the MSM. Instead they need to be taught how to do their jobs. A mandatory course in remedial journalism is most definitely in order.

I suppose it would end up having to be the SCOTUS’ decision as to what Americans could do with and to those who in the media who failed remedial journalism – and believe me, I would fully expect a massive failure rate among the first class.

Related Reading:

Politicians speak a great deal, especially to the press, and they say as little as they can possibly get away with while doing so. The ability to spew or drool an incessant stream of bullshit is a core job skill for the average politician and the one most required in order to keep their jobs.

From The Politician’s Mouth To The Press’ Ears

When comes right down to it, in the absence of statesmen, the only benefit that politicians provide to the people is a source of fertilizer and, even then, they spew it so profligately and indiscriminately that they poison far more than they stimulate.

Related Reading:

Perhaps it’s just me and the odd way my mind works, but the dichotomy in both legal and societal reaction to blackmail and “investigative journalism” seems quite odd to me. The difference between how we as a society view the two enterprises doesn’t seem to have any real, fact-based reasoning.

Why is Blackmail a crime, a felony in most or all cases, and “investigative journalism,” which is often better described as “muckraking” and does greater perceived harm to the victim an oft-lauded and protected activity?

The Shamed – Might They Have Preferred Blackmail?

Both blackmail and “investigative journalism” are based upon finding damaging and/or embarrassing details about a victim. The only difference is that a blackmailer gives the victim an alternative to being exposed.

So why is the blackmailer vilified and the reporter oft-times lauded?

It can’t be because blackmail causes greater harm to the victim than the muckraker does. Simple economics require that the price asked of the the victim by the blackmailer be less painful than exposure would be. Blackmail, after all, is a consumer driven industry where the victim sets the price based upon his or perceived pain points.

It can’t be because the blackmailer profits from his activities. Journalists, paparazzi, and random individuals with access to “sensitive” information regularly profit from exposing influential or famous people’s various faults, flaws, failings, and peccadilloes.

Nor can I see where or how it could be that blackmail is a crime against the People or State as opposed to being a crime against a Person. Not all, or even most cases of blackmail have involved politicians or businessmen in the context of their jobs and few of those that we know of have involved extorting them to act in certain manners. In point of fact, the exposées much touted by the media have seemingly had far more impact upon corporations and politics, yet they are legal and societally approved of.

It just doesn’t some to make any logical sense, yet I and all who I know are firm in our convictions that blackmail is wrong and must be a crime, whereas “investigative journalism” – or even “tell all,” unapproved biographies – are to be protected as basic rights necessary to our society.

Related Reading: