The screed by Payton S. Gendron is
I’m not going to write about its content: it has nothing to do with ethics. I don’t need to debate the ethics of an 18-year-old homicidal, racist lunatic. I may read the damn thing so I can rebut liars on the web and on MSNBC, but they have already shown their “stripes” on this topic, which I wrote about last night in a fit of disgust. Oh, I looked at the first page, which seems like steroid-enhanced Pat Buchanan—remember Pat?— rhetoric when he ran for President, and what that graphic above is supposed to signify I don’t have a clue about.
I am only printing the link because the news media, blogs and even Google began politicizing the mass shooting before the victims were barely cold. If the idea was not to encourage future mass shooters and maniacs by not giving them the publicity they crave, I can accept that—but then the propagandists who are all we have to let us know what’s going on cannot ethically make references to the document they are refusing to let us see. This is particularly true because their representations cannot be trusted. The revolting state of affairs is completely the fault of our biased journalism, our censorious social media and Big Tech companies, and the standards-free websites and blogs that have to ferret out what the news media is distorting.
[Please don’t bombard me with alerts that the document is now easy to find. If so, great, but it wasn’t last night, and it wasn’t at 6 am this morning, and I’ve spent enough of my waning time on Earth searching for the damn thing.]
So I have to publish the link, which should not be my responsibility, because the people who have a duty to publish it won’t, even as they try to weaponize it in their partisan fervor (“Get Tucker Carlson!”).
I just went through another useless loop with NPR, which characterized the document, provided a link in referencing another NPR post, which then linked back to the first post without showing me what they were talking about.
To hell with them. To hell with all of them.
These are the same people who are bombarding us with metaphorical leaflets screaming that democracy is endangered, who piously say that “democracy dies in darkness,” and who then keep us in the dark to suit their own purposes as they bolster their political allies. They will print anonymous leaks and rumors to undermine a President they don’t like, but refuse to let the public know that a Presidential candidate they support may have profited from his son’s influence peddling abroad. They will make a Republican Presidential candidate’s off-camera, illicitly-recorded vulgar comments to a TV entertainment show host a campaign issue, but try to bury a rape allegation by a staffer when the accused is a candidate they want to see win.
When the classified Wikileaks documents were put on the web, CNN’s then-star boytoy Chris Cuomo actually said on the air that it was illegal for the public to read it—Chris was and is an idiot—but that journalists (like him—ack!) could read it for us and would tell us what we need to know.
Sure. We can’t trust anyone, even journalists higher on the cerebral evolutionary chain than Cuomo, to tell us the truth, much less what we need to know. If we care—and the media et al. keep betting that most of the public doesn’t care enough—we have to check the facts ourselves, as they make it as difficult as they canGendron . (Of course, if I tried to post the link on Facebook, Zuckerberg’s minions would ban Ethics Alarms again like they did (for two years) when I dared to defend Fred Astaire wearing dark make-up to honor his black dance mentor in “Top Hat.”)
And that’s why Ethics Alarms has to publish the link.
[Much gratitude to John Paul for tracking it down; a reader also sent me Glenn Greewald’s link, which is here.]