Add new comment

...I didn't say Geoff had no morals.  I said his piece is morally wrong.  There is a difference.  To say a piece is morally wrong could imply either that it lacks any moral foundation at all...or that it has a moral foundation that is objectionable.  In this case,m the latter would probably be more appropriate.  Geoff clings desperately to the letter of the law - "He accepted a plea bargain...he accepted responsibility for the crime...I therefore have the right to be as stubbornly obsessive and obnoxious when talking about him as I want...it's all on him!"  His moral code, apparently, is that as long as the things he writes are technically correct, he can be as much of a jerk as he'd like if it sells papers and/or fills his blog with hits and/or moves forward his personal agenda (oh wait a second...I thought journalists weren't supposed to HAVE personal agendas...........)
Treating someone like a number (prisoner 24601!) because they had a run-in with the law, whether deserved or not (my belief on Lueke's role in this crime is irrelevant to this point) is objectionable.  That's what Baker insists on doing, and I think it's immoral...not because Geoff has no morals, but because his morals are screwed up.