Darva Conger, Jenna from Survivor, and other notable no-names. What are they? They're media whores. They have nothing worthwhile to say and yet they fight for the headlines.
Admittedly these people are pimples on the ass of society. But our society suffers from a sickness far worse than these media whores. Our society suffers from a parasitic media-press with no sense of journalistic integrity. So-called journalists are the ultimate media whores. Whether it's television, newspapers or radio, you can be assured, if the press is reporting something, it is full of inaccuracies, misleading statements, statements out of context, and generally speaking, bullshit.
The notion of a free press is important to a free and democratic society. I doubt anyone can really argue that it's not. When properly exercised, the powers of the press can be used to combat an unjust and oppressive government by disseminating a very powerful weapon to the populace. That weapon is information.
Information is a weapon that must be wielded carefully. It has the power to topple societies and destroy lives. Need proof? What do Paul Bernardo, Guy Paul Morin, and O.J. Simpson have in common? They were all convicted before a fair and impartial trial took place. They were all convicted by the press, regardless of whether they deserved to be so convicted. It may surprise some to discover that our society is not supposed to subscribe to mob justice, but thankfully the press keeps mob justice alive.
Remember tennis great Arthur Ashe? He was quite content to lead a quiet life and cope with his AIDS illness on his own. But thankfully the vermin-like press made information of his disease public. That really served the public interest well. This is scathing sarcasm in case you can't tell.
What is the justification the press constantly uses? Freedom of the Press - the people have a right to know.
Yes, people do have a right to know. But they only have a right to know things that are being incorrectly held from them. When information is withheld properly ie for a reason, there is no need for the people to know and so no justification for involvement of the press.
For example, people do not need to know our nation's defence secrets. Indeed, they are not entitled to know these secrets. Therefore, the press is barred from disseminating these secrets. It is justifiable that the press is prohibited from reporting on this topic.
What the press fails to realize is that there are topics other than official government secrets on which they should not be reporting. Let me give you the best example of all.
Just before January 2000, a little five year old girl was murdered. Her body was dismembered and her body parts were scattered through various parks in the Etobicoke region. The autopsy alleged the girl had been abused prior to death and dismemberment. The Canadian public was shocked and outraged.
Eventually, this girl's father and her step-mother were charged with murder. The police want to ensure a conviction. The Crown wants a conviction. Society at large wants these people shot, pissed on, and subjected to endless hours of Clintonisms as an ultimate torture. While I am a staunch advocate of due process and civil rights, I say with a clear mind that if these people are in fact guilty, I want them disembowled very slowly with a dull rusty knife, smeared with all sorts of deadly bacteria.
To properly convict these people requires untainted evidence. It requires people to make identifications based on events that have taken place.
The Metro Toronto Police told us that they would not publish the girl's photograph. The reason was simple. They needed their witnesses to have an untainted account of their events. By having the photographs published, their identification evidence might be called into question. Since the case hinged on identification evidence, it was imperative that this investigation be conducted cautiously and correctly.
So what was the Toronto Star's solution to this? They published the girl's photograph on the front page. Why? Their defence was that they were never ordered not to publish the photograph which they obtained from the girl's school.
Listen you miscreant-bastion of misrepresentation-media fuckballs! In spite of the fantasy world you live in, this girl's picture was not something the public NEEDED to see, nor did they have any vested interest in seeing. All evidence comes out in due course. The public can (and would rather) wait for a proper, iron-clad conviction.
Thanks to these greedy, heartless, brainless fuckers, that day may never come. All for the love of selling a rather shitty liberal rag newspaper. And please don't even try to raise that freedom of the press shit with me. This was a cheap ratings grab and nothing more. We live in a system where the justice process is transparent. When publication and evidence bans are brought into place (and yes, I know that there was no such ban here - I am explaining this to justify when bans are in place) they are lifted subsequent to the trial, unless there is a supremely compelling public policy rationale for not doing so.
In conclusion, journalists are mindless sycophants that would sell their own mothers for 50 cents an issue (GST included in price). Everytime they get on their pedestal of 'journalistic integrity' (what a fucking laugh) I feel compelled to ask them to stop spitting forth their vile bullshit like fresh squeezed spunk from a jailed pedophile tossed at the face of his accuser!
The sad and basic truth about journalists is simply that, in the great words of The Cunnilinguist, "these parasitical vampires need, as the politicians and drug dealers of China once were, to be taken out and shot! Their rotting corpses stay as they lay, as a tepid warning to those who might chose to tread upon the sovereign ground of the truth and ill-treat it's perfection!" Amen brother, I could not say it better myself. Die you parasitic fuckers, die!
Want to respond to this article? Send your comments
here!