Nobody Speak: Trials of the Free Press

The law should help us. Now when it helps "them" it's a bad law. And both sides are equally unpleasant in their stride to introduce the totalitarian state based on arbitrary decisions "for freedom" replacing the rule of law.

In this twisted sprint towards the total state, the scandal rags are actually "doing things differently." Anyway, the documentary is dishonest. And is trying to pull in any conspiracy in their favor.

Contact me with Questions, Comments or Suggestions ryitfork @ bitmail.ch

Although fairly interesting, it's very muddled and unfocused, and very biased. Lots of interviews with the press-side, hearing their opinions, but nothing but others footage from anyone else making for a very one sided argument. No matter who is right or wrong, it makes for a very biased film.

A rocky start using a company that is just horrible and awful to human beings with a few good staffers, later takes a look at another company and a group of people who have nothing but my upmost respect for the work they do.

Frustrating but interesting.

Using Gawnker as a 1st amendment example may not be entirely suitable.

First the Tabloid headlines are rather disgusted than admirable. Personally, I would not be drawn any attentions to its website not mentioning to read the contents. Secondly posting someone's sex tape even brought more gray areas. Subsequently, its bona fide intention became blurry and unpersuasive. It could have started with a well known media instead. However, there would be presentably much bigger challenges since most main stream ones including FOX News already have mighty legal teams to fend out such allegations. So I would say it's not a well thought out documentary. The idea was applicable. But its implementation lacked effectiveness.

Basically, Gawnker is not a media public would think has its value in the society. It essentially leeched on human ethics. Nevertheless. 1st amendment protects all voices even dark, unpleasant ones. This documentary might convey such a message. However, I am the least convinced of their innocence and that is the problem.

This was a well-produced and thoughtful piece that certainly caught my eye as I scrolled through Netflix. As a guy who follows journalism fairly close (as a hobby, not an occupation), I was certainly intrigued.

There were three problems I saw with the movie.

First, it was very one-sided. Sheldon Adelson, a Republican, is obviously a horrible, maniacal billionaire whose only reason to purchase a newspaper is to hide any negative press about himself. Nevermind all the Democrat billionaires who buy newspapers-Buffett, Bezos, John Henry. I'm sure their intentions are 100% pure and noble and they never try to use their newspaper to cover up stories? Mmhmm. Sure.

Second, it was just an attack on one person. I'm not a Trump supporter. I did not vote for him and will never vote for him. But the disingenuousness behind the documentary was insulting. We can talk about the effect the Hogan/Bollea case has on journalism without having to go the anti-Trump route. (Also note, they say nothing about Obama trying journalists under the Espionage Act).

But the bigger point to all this is that journalists actually think they are above any criticism. ANY story they come up with is newsworthy, important, and completely above reproach. And to criticize them is to slap the face of the most important arm of civil society. To question them is to question the fabric of society-which is obviously the journalists.

We can't question them, call them to the carpet for shady, unethical, or inappropriate uses of their positions, stories, or actions. And since the general public's faith in journalism is waning (many will contend it's all but gone), they have to pat themselves on the back.

Nobody is going to bat for the journalists anymore. And perhaps that's the bigger element for them: they see their impact on society decreasing, so they need pieces like this.

I found this to be an intriguing, yet troubling film.