My growing sentiments toward journalists

I am realizing that journalists are abusing the right to information. It
is not like the good old days of Walter Cronkite, Peter Jennings, Tom
Brokaw and all the others who took their profession seriously but
balanced it with a dose of social responsibility. These days,
journalists go and find information we are not interested in knowing,
stuff that we don't need to know, or stuff that it is better off left
not said. And this leads to, what I call, irresponsible behavior. Every
news show is looking to be the first to talk about "Breaking news" or
show off their investigative skills. Plus, I think they are easily
miffed if anyone denies them access to information, not realizing that
some secrets are better left private.

Now let me give some examples of what I am talking about.

Example 1. two words Abu Grade (yea I know I did not spell that right).
Media did all their investigative reporting to discover ALL the damaging
videos and photos of US Soldiers abusing and humilating prisoners. That
was months ago. Then just recently ACLU sued to make public another CD
which is supposed to have even more (or possibly the same) photos and
videos. Why? So they can put this stuff on the news and internet for all
to see. Further giving radical Muslims more reason to blow sh*t up.
But do you think they care about the repercussions of their actions?
Their response is that the American people need to know.
My question is "What for?" How does the knowledge of what they are doing
affect me?
Do they want me to know that war is grisely stuff? I know that already.
I don't want to see pictures of it.
Are they trying to appeal to the radical Muslims? Guess what? It does
not matter. Radical muslims don't give a crap what ACLU or other
journalist uncover. As far as they are concerned any Western is an enemy
and will be blown up if they get the chance. SO why give them fodder for
the twisted terriorist justification?!?!?

OK OK OK...the next example isn't so serious. But this falls under the
"Who cares?" category

Example 2. There was a story that was covered by the media for 2 days
about the Lt. Gov. of SC speeding and not getting a speeding ticket.
Okay, if he was in some little hokey poke towns, I would understand all
the consternation. BUT HE WAS ON THE INTERSTATE!!! Everyone speeds on
the interstate. Who cares if he did not get a ticket? I don't. If you
are on the interstate and speeding, as long as you are not driving
erratically, I don't think the po-po care if you are going a little bit
over the limit (and by a little bit I mean 20-30 mph).
And you know that politicians had to get involved to try to make matters
seem worse:

"Joe Erwin, chairman of the state Democratic Party, issued a statement
criticizing the Republican lieutenant governor.
'Andre Bauer has demonstrated once again his unbelievable immaturity and
lack of good judgment,' he said.
'His continuing actions endanger the safety of other drivers and
pedestrians. Bauer's apparent misrepresentation to law enforcement
agents is an extremely serious and disturbing matter.'" (To read the
entire article
http://www.greenvilleonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060329/NEWS
01/60328013/1001/)

What got me is that Joe (yea we on first name basis now) said that the
Lt. Gov. was endangering "pedestrians". What pedestrians are walking on
the freeways and interstates? As far as I am concerned, if the Lt. Gov.
was doing the speed limit, he probably would have been slowing down
traffic and causing more opportunities for problems (i.e. road rage). I
say "Speed on Lt. Gov. " And if I get stopped, I am going to say I was
following the big Lt. Gov cause we got a luncheon to attend. Maybe I
won't get a ticket too. ;)