Add new comment

To interject a "possible" shift in perspective for Matt to ponder.
Your interpretation of Geoff's piece and defense is that you view him as lacking a moral foundation (to some degree).
However - I could EASILY see Geoff's piece viewed as being *OVERLY* moralistic. 
To distance ourselves from the case in point to try and look at the 'general' topic. Let's say, (as an example), I were to write a piece on a kid given the exact same punishment that Lueke received - but for a DWI-related crime - (hit someone with a car while drunk - but the person didn't die).
If *MY* personal morality is one that puts an extremely high value on personal responsiblity - and I believe that drunk drivers are treated FAR too leniently by our judicial system, then it could easily be a moral imperative *TO ME* to write a serious piece that might slam the kid, the courts, and the club for not punishing the kid further.  My motivation could be completely morally based -- yet, the implementation of that foundation could easily appear to be an attack piece seemingly devoid of any concern over the impact it might have on the lives of others.  (In my example, the over-riding intent of the piece might actually be a belief that in the long run, writing the piece might change behaviors and save lives).
That said -- I also completely understand and appreciate the concerns in regards to the power of the press in general to destroy lives (either by intent - or as "collateral damage").  The line between informing the public and damaging individuals is often very blurry.  I got to show the film "Absence of Malice" about 40 times when I was in college to all the jouralism classes.  The moral and ethical questions the press face on a daily basis are rarely clear and easy.
Christians during the Crusades - KKK members in the previous century - and Islamic Radicals today have all operated under what THEY believed to be moral imperatives.  The sad reality is that one man's moral act is often another man's atrocity.