Monday, August 21, 2006

Shut up. Sit down. Be silent.

You know, I'm not a big fan of the Media, but I've not actually descended into active hate.

Yet.

Various MainStream Media lawyers are demanding that the arrest warrant for John Mark Kerr, and any other records involving the Jon Benet Ramsey murder investigation be unsealed, so that the MainStream Media may look through the records for themselves.

I have a answer for that. It involves the lawyers and the MainStream Media comitting anatomically improbable sexual acts of moderate deviancy upon themselves.

Allow me to reveal a quote from the filing:

"There is great public interest to learn whether the arrest of John Mark Karr solved the case after a decade or is yet another `mistake,'"

So, if I read this correctly, the MainStream Media wishes to decide for themselves whether the murder of JonBenet Ramsey has been solved.

Silly me, here I was under the impression that that sort of thing would be settled IN COURT.

This is yet another example of the Media getting too big for its britches.

Tell me, truly, if -- and that's one big 'if' -- the judge unseals these records and lets the Media sniff around and "learn whether the arrest of John Mark Karr solved the case", what then?

What happens once the Media decides that the case has -- or has not -- been solved?

Yeah. They're going to start running their fat mouths. Headlines. Op-Ed pieces. Special music on CNN. Repeating the same damned soundbites every fifteen minutes for the next two weeks.

How the hell -- I ask you -- how the hell do you guarantee an impartial jury (Amendment VI, US Constitution) when 24 hour news channels and internet news sites are blasting their opinions everywhere you look?

"In a democracy, in an open society, there's scrutiny of public officials, and how can there be scrutiny without information?" said John Temple, editor and publisher of the Rocky Mountain News.

Who the hell decided that the "rights" of an "open society" trump the right of the accused to a fair trial?

Who the hell decided that the "rights" of an "open society" trump the rights of the family of the victim to the closure of a trial without wondering what effect media spin had? And where was I when this meeting was held?

Listen to me: you want to scrutinize public officials? Knock yourself out -- AFTER any trial is done. Everything is public record then, go forth and conquer.

Until then, do everyone a favour and limit yourself to doing your sodding job, and let the investigators, judge and jury do theirs.

There are details in those records which only the investigators and the killer know. There is no need for the General Public to know these details. And let us face the truth -- once the Media knows it -- EVERYONE is going to know it.

"But, LawDog," I hear you say, "Surely the Media will handle this case with the discretion it deserves."

Yeah. Sure they will. Just like the New York Times used its discretion on the story concerning the wonderfully successful tracking and apprehension of international terrorists by way of electronic fund transfers.

Jumped right to the top of the tallest tower they could find and brayed the details to the Universe (metaphorically speaking), didn't they?

This bunch of hacks with delusions of adequacy won't be any different. Five minutes after they find out a detail that only the killer would know -- the whole rotten planet will know.

Sod the lot of them.

You want to solve crimes? Go to a police academy, then join a department. Work your way up to investigator. Deciding guilt or innocence is not -- despite any grandiose self-delusions -- your purvue.

So. Take your filings and your demands, fold them until they're all points, and then shove them up your various fundments until the lot of you gag.

And while you're gagging, you can wait like everyone else and report the conclusion -- just like everyone else.

*spit*

LawDog

11 comments:

Cindi said...

Sing it, Dawg. The "drive-by" (Bill Cosby's interpretation of Lindbaugh's characterization, no less) cares not one whit for the public's rights, if there is such a collective thing. They're nothing but gossip-mongers now, at best; opinion-manipulators is also being charitable.

ambulancedriver said...

Awww... But if the talking heads have to wait like everyone else, then they're not special anymore. And where's the fun in that? Plus then they can't beat the other network by 5 seconds to leak the information.

Hammer said...

In my humble opinion this all started with the televised O.J Simpson fiasco where the trial was held by the media and all sense of decorum and decency were flung out the window.

The police botched up the original Ramsey case and the media was right there wallowing in it every 15 seconds for what seemed like years.

Now that the slimy media and psuedo journalistic hacks have their foot in the door, they think they are a legitimate part of the judicial process.

Bull! They need to stay on the courthouse steps and wait for the courts to do their job.

Jon said...

"...Bull! They need to stay on the courthouse steps and wait for the courts to do their job..."

No, they need to be forty miles away so the locals will still have access to the court house they pay dearly for.

Phoenix Ravenflame said...

I think this is what happens when people get way too used to having information from everywhere available at the touch of a button. Be it internet, TV, radio... people start to think whatever Divine Force created them gave them an absolute right to know things right freakin' now! People don't care what makes sense, or what is the logical method for proceeding with things. All they care about is that they have a "right" to know. Technology can be a beautiful thing, but I really think there are some folks so stupid they shouldn't be allowed access to it.

Mark@C said...

Personally I'd love to see the MSM become legitimately involved in the judicial process.
This can easily be accomplished by indictments for treason, espionage, and obstruction of justice.

Mark said...

Excellent rant LawDog.

In college I took a Photojournalism class (it filled an art requirement), on the first day our teacher told us the definition of "news", warning us that we wouldn't like it. News is whatever the editor thinks will sell newspapers.

Journalists exist for one, and only one, purpose: to sell advertizing. Any journalist who says otherwise is trying to sell you an ad.

MadRocketScientist said...

An "Open Society" does not mean instant access to all information right now, it only means that information will only remain sealed until the existance of the seal is no longer in the public interest. A seal on investigations serves the public interest until a case has been settled. A seal on classified information serves the public interest until it is no longer possible for persons participating in whatever is being protected can no longer be harmed (note this protection does not apply to political leaders who order such programs, if the government institutes an illegal domestic spying program, those who carry out the orders should be shielded, those who issue the orders should be hung out to dry).

MadRocketScientist said...

Just re-read my post & I thought I would quickly clarify something. I think what the NYTimes did about scandalizing the funds tracking was sheer publicity. Granted the program was an open secret, but lately a lot of the screamings about the Administrations spyings have seem to me to be a bit much. Now, had the NYT found evidence that Bush or his goons (I don't like Bush but I won't get into it right now) were using their domestic spying in order to silence political opponents or to acquire evidence so corporations could file civil suits or some other gross overuse of authority (see Lawdogs post on Mission Creep), then the NYT would be perfectly justified in blowing the program wide open, just as we, as citizens, would be perfectly justified in hauling the guilty politicos out in front of the White House and having them shot.

Anonymous said...

Lawdog,
I am extremely new to this blogging thing(About 5 min!!!:0))
And have been reading and enjoying your posts for a few weeks, and I have to say that I could not agree more with your opinion of the MSM of today! Could anyone tell me where they got the idea that "The People have a right to know" means right this damn minute, and to hell with the saftey/security/ rights of anyone involved in their report?!
i.e., On 9/11, our country was for all intents and purposes under attack by a foreign adversary and our President, for obvious reasons of security, was re-located to a secure location. The Media in their rabid need to report something, disclosed his EXACT LOCATION not once, but at least four different times over the course of the day just as soon as they found out where he was!! what, do they think Terrorists don't watch TV?? Had they meant to take him out, the hardest part of their mission, knowing where to attack him, was accomplished over and over that day by the ***Damned reporters of every major network!!!
To paraphrase one of your More colorful metaphores, Unbelievable, mono-synaptic glory hounds!!!

CoolCarbon said...

Looked up Chit-Chat in Google and found your Blog.....great stuff!...

Greetings from Bonny Scotland.

Posted the link here btw ... http://gsclubuk.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=31013#31013

CoolCarbon (aka Mike, Retired "Bobby".)