I rarely write rebuttals to articles, but sometimes an article is written that is odious and ignorant enough to warrant a counter-article in order to clear the air of the pollution that these mole-sighted “journalists” vomit into our collective consciousness.
The article of note in this case is an editorial by conservative hack Michael Goodwin, who is currently poisoning minds at the NY Post. Goodwin wrote an article on April 20th titled, ”The Pulitzers Reward Traitors and Treason.” I will utilize excerpts of that article in my rebuttal, the full text of which can be found here.
Goodwin begins with a typical broad, foolish statement:
It’s official: Treason is cool and traitors are acceptable sources for journalists. The Pulitzer Prize says so.
Immediately questions are raised if you are a person who doesn’t implicitly trust the State to always have the best interests of the people in mind: Who exactly is the traitor here? And who has committed treason?
According to the State, Edward Snowden is the traitor. However, his actions can barely hold a candle to those undertaken by the government against the people, which was revealed in the documents Snowden shared. Were there some “universal court,” which was somehow legitimized, our “leaders” would have been tried and hanged for treason against their own people enough times over that all of Middle America would be gallows. Are crimes against the people lesser than those against the State? Only because the State has the power to brand with a scarlet “T” those who would oppose it.
In giving the 2014 Public Service award to The Washington Post and The Guardian for publishing stories based on Edward Snowden’s stolen documents, the Pulitzer judges gave their stamp of approval to news organizations that cooperate with criminals and compromise national security. No doubt the lesson will trickle down to scoop-hungry young journalists that they should cultivate people willing to betray America.
Snowden has been categorized as a criminal by some and a hero by others, but honestly that shouldn’t matter in the least. State law enforcement agencies deal with criminals all the time during investigations, but even more egregiously, the State also intentionally deals with perpetrators of war crimes. The State also finds allies in thieves, rapists, murderers, etc., all in the name of National Security. Why? In order to put U.S.-friendly leaders on the throne (which almost always results in blowback).
So why should the media, which is supposed to be one of the protections intended to keep the State accountable, be any different? If the truth is the truth and wrongdoing is exposed, does it matter that it comes from a “hero” or “villain”? Absolutely not. But Mr. Goodwin would like us to play by some set of imaginary rules that walk the razors edge of journalistic morality. If the government doesn’t play by these rules, why should the media?