Normally sensationalist shite masquerading as news really gets under my skin, and I do my best these days to ignore it. Or, if it comes in print form, I may try to convince my cat to mess on it. But, this case and these recent "news" developments warranted a bit of commentary, or so I decided.
I dont care how good he is. He's using this to milk ratings nothing more.
As to whether this could be nothing more than a ratings ploy, I have a couple of other ideas.
First, profiteering off bringing criminals to 'justice' has a long tradition. From collecting bounties to rewards, many people have found the extra motivation to find themselves 'assisting' law enforcement by dint of financial profit. I know that sounds rather crass, but it is true. Someone can be serving the law and their own wallets all at the same time. Sometimes our moral and ethical inclinations need a littel extra push.
Secondly, sometimes an appeal to the public is made to effect justice when more sedate and conventional means have been exhausted. Tame examples would include wanted posters. But, in this case, something has happened, presumably a crime, and more traditional efforts of investigation have apparently stalled. While sensational journalism is apparently de Vries' job (which, we all have to find a way to put food on the table, ne?), it doesn't prevent him from moving forward this case in a more public fashion than the authorities are able. In other words, not only can Mr. de Vries ratings be advantaged, the case can be benefited, too.
In just these two reasons alone, I can believe that there is more than simple ratings in the works. Very rarely can motivations and the like be narrowed down to one simple thing. Life, even crappy TV life, is usually more complex.
And to be honest I believe in the legal world what he has wont do much more than re-open the interest in the case as they cant convict him on this.
Yes, it is true that we do not convict people on TV shows alone. Thank goodness! However, media has played an increasing role in the relationship between crime and punishment. Just the ability to record and review events - everything from the actual crimes to intentional or unintentional admissions of guilt - has given new scope to the way investigations are conducted and the way criminals prosecuted. Technology continuously changes the way we live our lives, and the way we effect our laws is no different.
I just want you to know, I am not disagreeing with you with any vehemence. Personally, I think these kinds of shows are utter tripe. But, I just wanted to give you some more food for thought.
Meh. My 2-yen.
Be well,
~Darrin
