The Maverick Conservative

Is this Part V or VI of my "Drew Peterson and the Evil Media" series?  Clint Eastwood, in "Dirty Harry":  "Did I fire six shots, or only five.  In all of the excitement (this bog is EXITING), I forgot myself.....The question is:  Do you feel lucky?   Well, do you, PUNK?

For thosse who have not followed this series, it is framed in terms of a (largely fictional, although not entirely) Socratic dialogue between mysefl and my mother (who eats up this back fence gossip masqueratding as "crmie coverage" in our present media).  I am using Drew Peterson as an example, to make it clear that this is not a matter of politcal agenda.  Everyone in the English speaking world knows that Drew Peterson probably killed at least one of his wives.  The question is:  Can the media be content to report FACTS, or are they so addicted to back fence gossip and UNFAIR character assassination that they are unwilling to be content with the facts.  The question answers itself, and this Socratic dialogue expands upon the answer.   This latest installment is the result of FIFTEEN SECONDS of flipping through channels to see what sports were on, as I stopped (for those 15 seconds) to see if Nancy Grace was as bad as I remembered her (I long ago BOYCOTTED her as the single WORST media person alive, and that is saying a lot).   She was (as bad as I remember).  With that long winded introduction, to the dialogue with my mother:

S:  Did you see Nancy Grace last night? 

M:  You know I can't stand Nancy Grace.

S:  You mean that she is too hysterically over the top, even for YOU?

M:  You know she is.

S:  Boy, that means she is BAD, doesn't it?

M:  There is no need to keep beating the point into the ground.  And I am tired of you making me look so dumb in these conversations.  I would NOT say those words you put in my mouth (editor's note:  With some poetic license, yes she would).

S:  Well, Grace was baliscally repeating some of the back fence gossip that has appeared on Greta van Susteren.  You watch Greta, don't you?  Isnn't it the same back fence gossip?

M:  Greta is not as annoyming.  I do watch her.  I have TOLD you.  Back fence gossip is FUN.  It is ENTERTAINMENT.

S:  You don't worry that people's LIVES are being ruined, like those Duke rape case defendants?

M:  Drew Peterson deserves it. 

S:  Well, if the only people entitled to fairness are those who DESERVE IT, don't you think that ALL of us are in danger of being treated badly?   Isn't that why we give RIGHTS to criminals--because OUR rights may end up being violated if we say that criminals have no rights?

M:  I tell you.  You take this stuff to seriously.  It is FUN.  It is GOSSIP.  It is ENTERTAINMENT.

S:  So it does not bother you that both Nancy and Greta are pushing this RUMOR that Stacy Peterson told an unnamed "clergyman" that Drew Peterson told Stacy, who told the clergyman, that Drew Peterson had killed wife no. 3, and then made it look like an accident?

M:  No, it does not bother me.   Drew Peterson deserves it.

D (my feminist younger daughter who sometimes comments on this blog, and may make a guest appearance later):  Men are scum.--S: I toldl you to keep out of this.

S:  It does not bother you that "clergyman" is thrown in to give spurious credibility to HEARSAY?  It doesn't bother you that ppolice sources are LEAKING infomation that they KNOW is NOT evidence?  It doesn not bother you that this is ALL back fence gossip, where we have to rely on the credibility of UNKNOWN "news" sources, AND an unknown clergyman, AND a MISSING Stacy--with ONLY the missing Stacy having pesonal knowledge?

M:  I TOLD you that I understand it is back fence gossip.  But back fence gossip is FUN. 

S:  So the mistake that Mike Nifong (Duke rape case prosecutor, who was disbarred) made was talking ON THE RECORD.  If he had arranged to leak that stuff ANONYMOUSLY, then everything would have been fine?

M:  Well, then it was OFFICIAL.   If it is anonymous, we KNOW it is just gossip.

S:  Do we?  That is not what Nancy and Greta and the rest are saying, is it?  They are not saying that this is merely for FUN, and you should not pay attention to this stuff?  In fact, is not the reason back fence gossip has a BAD reputation is that it can DSTROY people?

M:  I tell you, you take this too seriously.   I am smart enough to know it is all gossip.  I LIKE gossip. 

S:  Even it it is calculated to DESTROY people?

M:   You just take it too seriously.

S:  Do you understand that STACY does not look very good, if this GOSSIP is true?  Do you understand that she is admitting to being an ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT?  Do you understand that a suspicious person might suspect her of COMPLICITY in the murder of wife no. 3 (she did, after, all, evidently provide Drew Peterson with an alibi)?

M:  I understand that you accused Stacy of murder before.  Thit is ridiculous.

S:  I did NOT accuse Stacy of murder before.  I just said that you could SPECULATE (gossip) about Stacy, just as well as about Drew.  Stacy married, or at least STAYED with, Drew Peterson AFTER this murder, did she not?  

M:  I guess, but she was young and frightened.

S:  Or an accessory, if you look  at it differently?

M:  Well, if you want to be MEAN about it. 

S:  Don't you think that these media people are being MEAN and UNFAIR to Drew Peterson by putting out all of this GOSSIP?

M:  Drew Peterson deserves it.

D:  Men are sc...S:  I TOLD you to stay out of this.

S:   You do realize that EVEN if Stacy told a clergyman that Drew Peteson admitted he killed wife no. 3, that is NOT evidence (facts)?  That it is HEARSAY?   That it depends on the credibility of STACY, who is not around to defend her own credibility?

M:  I understand that, but this is all fun GOSSIP.   We are not in a courtroom.

S:  Except, can't people's lives be RUINED, just like the Duke defendants were SMEARED by MIke Nifong?

M:  You keep bringing up Mike Nifong, but that was OFFICIAL.  

S:  So you can smear someone's characther unfairly, so long as it is UNOFFICIAL?  You DO think that Mike Nifong should have done the same thing ANONYMOUSLY?

M:  Oh, you are hopeless.

S:  Nancy Grace is hopeless (but only slightly more so than the rest).  She actually admitted, in what I saw last night, that she was presenting nothing but GOSSIP (oh, she did not use that word, but she talked about all of these RUMORS and stories floating around, without any confirmation).  Can you imagine what her conclusion was?

M:  I already said she was horrible.

S:  Her conclusion was that the POLITCE need to hold a NEWS CONFERENCE "to set the record straight", and clear up all of these rumors.   In other words, she is DEMANDING that the police do a "Mike Nifong".   In other words, the DISGRACEFUL media digs themselves a hole with GOSSIP (which eventually becomes obvious), and now want to be BAILED OUT (in a way, exactly how Mike Nifong got in trouble in the first place).  Is it not clear that the media should not be spreading this JUNK as "news" in the first place?

M:  I keep telling you.  It is NOT "news".  It is ENTERTAINMENT.  What does the "truth" have to do with it?

S:  Exactly, although I am asking the questions here.  Do you realize that Fox News, and O'Reilly are really just as bad?  O'Reilly, when Greta van Susteren admitted that she had NO FACTS, and only hearsay, said that the D.A. should let the public know what is going on.  Is it not clear even to you that the authorities, like MIke Nifong, have NO BUSINESS smearing anybody, unless they are willing to CHARGE them (see previous entry on the NON-EXISTENT category of "official" "suspects")?

M:  I agree that the authorities should not smear people, but this cable stuff is FUN GOSSIP.

S:  It is you that is hopeless.  Do you realize that there are still no official autopsy results (esplaining partially why these cable shows have been reduced to OBVIOUS gossip)?

M:  Well, they have that one forensic expert on all of these shows.

S:  Was he not hired by the FAMILY of wife no. 3 for the specific purpose of showing that she was murdered?

M:   He is still an expert.

S:  Ah.  But is he a NEUTRAL expert.  Do you realize that SOME "experts" regard themselves as ADVOCATES for the point of view for which they are hired?

M:  He is still putting his reputation on the line.

S:  Is he?  Or do people promptly forget?

M:  I do agree on that Dr. Lee (O.J. Simpson expert who also testified in the KEITH Perterson trial--spelling/identification errors are my mother's).  He seems to be saying whatever he is paid to say.

S:  Is it not clear to you, then, that these things are not black and white:  that an "expert" can, without actually LYING, take a position that is just not the NEUTRAL position, and advocate that position with selective "truths"?

M:  I guess that is true.  But this Peterson guy is pretty convincing.  

S:  Is he not PAID to be convincing?

M:  Well, yes. 

S:  Let us agree, however, that the forensic analysis of the exhumed body of wife no. 3 WAS "news" (one of the few items of actual "news" in the case).   It may be that the expert, although hired by the family, is correct--even from a neutral point of view.  But is it not obvious that the actual "news" is sparse here:

1.  Wife no. 3 died under suspicious circumstances, and one forensic analysis of the exhumed body has labeled it murder.

2.   Wife no. 4 is missing, with "explanations" by the husband that are pretty flimsy/unbelievable (and that questonable "blue barrel" stuff discussed in a previous dialogue). 

3.  In situations like this, history would suggest that the husband did it.

Is not that IT?

M:  You are leaving out all of the FUN GOSSIP.

S:  Right.  But are not the above the ONLY FACTS?

M:  Yes, but I read your title.  What is this thing about PRINCE CHARLES?

S:  Well, part of the gossip (from the family of wife no. 3) is that wife no. 3 was scared of Drew Peterson.  Maybe other ex-wives have joined in (see previous dialogue about the DISGRACEFUL interview with a STEPDAUGHTER by Greta van Susteren).  There has been this further HEARSAY that Stacy was scared of Drew Peterson (one problem here, as stated above, being that you could make a case for Stacy being an ACCOMPLICE in the murder of wife no. 3--which might, of course, give Drew a motive for murder, but he has enough motives already).  Do you not understand that statements by an ultimate VICTIM of "fear" are NOT factual evidence that the person feared did the crime?

M:  I guess, but what does that have to do with Prince Charles?

S:  The same media was playing up these recently released letters of Prince Charles to show that Princess Diana was AFRAID that Prince Charles was going to have her killed.  Do you not agree that there is NO FACTUAL EVIDENCE that Princess Diana was murdered at all--much less that Prince Charles killed her?

M:  Oh I don't think Prince Charles killed her.  But he is a lousy human being.  I don't have any sympathy for him.  He RUINED a perfectly nice girl with his obsession with that Camilla person.

D.  Men are scum---S:  Can't you say ANYTHING ELSE.  If not, shut up.

S:  Isn't that exactlythe point.  With Drew Peterson, as well as Prince Charles, the point is to show that he is a LOUSY HUMAN BEING, without presenting FACTS at all.  It is all back fence gossip.

M:  I keep telling you:  gossip is fun.  Anyway, Drew Peterson did it.

S:  Maybe; even probably.  However, do not even you understand that the only difference between Prince Charles and Drew Peterson are the indications that foul play actually occurred (as distinguished from Princess Diana, where there is NO indication of foul play at all)?  In other words, all of this back fence gossip adds NOTHING to the factual case against Drew Peterson?  Do noe even you understand that 40 bishops could testify that Stacy Peterson TOLD them that Drew Peterson killed wife no. 3, and it would STILL be NO EVIDENCE that Drew Peterson killed wife no. 3 (because then it would be the credibility of STACY at issue, and our Constitution GUARANTEES the right to confront the witnesses against you; Stacy is not around to confront).

M:  You are the lawyer.  I sort of understand that concept, but I am not totally sure I agree with it.

S:  Is not that one of the EVILS of this "news" coverage:  the failure to explain WHY evidence is NOT admissible:  the law--over CENTURIES--has found it to be UNRELIABLE, and UNFAIR to be used against a criminal defendant.  Do not you understand it to also be UNRELIABLE as "news".  It simply does NOT go to factually prove anything?

M:  I TOLD.you.  This is ENTERTAINMENT.

Editor's note:  So it goes.  Obviously, this dialogue could go on forever (and may, if the media keeps angering me on this stuff).   I have done my best to show you that this is EVIL stuff.  It undercuts faith in the law to imply that things the law does not allow are, in fact, relevant.  It has ALL of the evils of back fence gossip.  It has the PONTENTIAL to DESTROY innocent lives (:and some not so innocent--a category into which Drew Peterson may fit).   Yet, I have trouble convincing my own mother.  Do I have a hope of convincing other people?  I actually think the MEDIA may be gradually convincing them.  Even my mother can no longer stand Nancy Grace, and Greta van Susteren turned her off with the Aruba fiasco (day after day after day of meaningless coverage).   The media is unable to keep themselves from goingfurther and further with this evil stuff.  That is why I have predicted that sooner or later someone will OWN A FEW NETWORKS, after the libel/slander suit when he or she is conclusively proven innocent (as happened with Richard Jewell).  But even if that does not occur, people are not stupid (even my mother).  They eventually realize that they are being fed nothing but meaningless gossip (as already does my mother; she just thinks some of it is fun speculation).   The audience for this evil stuff really is not that large, and there is effectively NO chance it will increase.  In fact, I believe (I have to, for my sanity) that it will steadily DECREASE (despite momentary spikes in ratings as a story is "hot").

It is no accident that the media's approval ratings are about the same as that of Congress.  People may tune in for "hot" gossip, but they don't respect themselves in the morning.  More importantly, they don't respect the media that fed it to them in the morning.

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this