You didn't get my point then. I said IF they are engaging in honest arguments. Fox News is not a legitimate news source, it is a partisan political operation. While I don't support this goal as I think it's shady regardless of the target, that doesn't alter my contempt for Fox's political advocacy disguised as journalism.
As I said above, consider what type of information they find and use.
I cited an example of Rupert Murdoch lying to the public about his donations.
Another example might be uncovering the Murdoch media 'phone hacking'.
I'm not suggesting 'normal journalists' should be 'investigated' who legitimately report news.
Was it wrong for Larry Flynt to offer $1 million for information on members of Congress found to be having affairs while they were impeaching Clinton?
He wanted to 'expose hypocrisy'.
What I haven't seen any other post distinguish well in this thread is the difference between when a measure becomes justified by 'searching for confirming hypocrisy' or 'the other side does it', and when that's not justification, 'two wrongs don't make a right'. I cited a pretty far out hypothetical where it would not be justified.
Back to the 'type of information', Fox has been exposed for having 'talking point daily memos' issued by the executives on the attacks to make on Democrats.
When is exposing wrong something that doesn't deserve investigating, and when does it?
How about if the people involved are attacking others for things they violate? How do you know they are?
The Scaife situation I mentioned about Clinton was an example where such 'investigating' seemed to go way beyond 'legitimate'. Drunks in Arkansas who would make up wild stories about Clinton being a big cocaine dealer were paid, no problem. That wasn't 'legitimate investigation' of accurate wrong - but it was that very paper Scaife funded that David Brock worked at, The American Spectator, that among all kinds of false stories was the original leak - they say from an editing error not to hide the name - of the Paula Jones affair that led to the sexual harrassment suit against Clinton resulting in the Supreme Court getting involved and Clinton losing his law license and the Lewinsky matter. You can oppose impeachment and still feel it was 'legitimate' for it to come out as news.
But we don't need to be talking about sex here for investigating Fox propagandists.
They arguably shouldn't be investigating 'is Bill O'Reilly's wife a substance abuser or did she have an abortion' - though some might support it if O'Reilly is fighting abortion rights.
But what if they find, say, O'Reilly playing an illegal middleman role helping a presidential candidate coordinate with a super PAC?
Al Franken partly built his name helping him run for Senate on anti-O'Reilly and other right-wing commentator books exposing them for dishonesty and hypocrisy. Was he wrong?
("Lies: And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right" had O'Reilly on the cover, a chapter on him and was clearly aimed at Fox, who sued and lost.)
How do people get those exposures without private investigators helping as one source?
So I think condeming all use of private investigators in investigating all acts of people like Fox propagandists is too broad. If they're misused, they can be condemned specifically.
People naturally have a distaste for something like private investigators because of the danger of misusing them to intimidate and attack people for their political views, and that can be wrong depending on the information. Examples are a defense attorney finding dirt on a rape victim to discredit them - something they're probably obligated to do if it helps their client win at trial; or, for example, here's an anecdote:
Annie Oakley was very famous nationally for her sharpshooting in Wild Bill's show; later, Randoph Hearst had a paper that printed a story she'd been arrested for shoplifting and was unable to afford bail. The story was copied by papers nationally. The fact was, a prostitute had given the name 'Annie Oakley' when arrested, it wasn't her. She spent six years suing every newspaper nationally who had run the story - who had largely retracted and apologized for it.
Hearst hired Pinkerton investigators to try to find dirt on Oakley to help him attack her at trial. They were unable to find any and she won 54 of 55 lawsuits (but lost money overall).
That's a case where I'd say most people would say 'that was scummy'.
But what if a private investigator uncovered Bush's drunk driving conviction and having his attorney Alberto Gonzales covering it up in the campaign - with Gonzales being made a senior White House official? Was that a legitimate story for a private investigator to find and help expose?
I think there are three main categories here.
The most ok is 'the activity is not a problem whether or not the opposition does it'. For example, if Fox clearly lies in a story, is it ok to criticize that? Yes, I'd say whether or not Fox criticizes others for it. The least ok is the 'the activity is a problem whether or not the opposition does it.' I gave the pretty far out example before of raising political money with drug dealing - not ok even if the opponents do it. Same with, say, phone fraud lying about the day of the election.
The middle category is the controversial 'made more ok if the opponents do it' category.
It's controversial because it's a risk to use that to try justify the third category. An example might be 'questioning the patriotism of opponents if they do it.'
Maybe you feel questioning their patriotism is something to avoid if they don't do it; but if they're scorig points by politicizing attacks on patriotism, you feel turnabout is fair.
I'd say the specifics matter when it comes to the use of private investigators.
A lot of people like to get the information even while they might criticize how it's obtained - and sometimes the public is shameless about demanding and causing excessive intrusion.
If I see some sensational story I think is unethical I'll generally avoid giving them any money - but the public largely does pay a lot for that sort of thing, unfortunately.
There is an issue of 'exposing the most craven political whores who espouse things harmful to people, who are demagogues who don't care who they hurt for their sponsors' benefit'; but the rules for them largely will apply to the 'legitimate journalists' or to, say, Media Matters staff even if they're being completely honest in what they do.
Al Gore lost the presidency, among other reasons, because of lies told about him - the sort that private investigators can dig up. For example, it was uncovered he'd made a statement about his connection with 'The Love Story' that was a very innocent issue - but in the hands of political propagandists it was turned into an effective attack supporting the 'Al Gore is a liar' message they had decided to spread. What should be done about splitting the hairs between abuses and lies like that and better investigating?
Journalists use investigators. Special prosecutors use investigators. Lawyers use investigators. They're just a part of how things are done.
Are we going to have 'selective outrage'? Cases where they went too far include Murdoch's media hacking cell phones of ordinary people and celebrities.
Would that be going too far if it uncovered, say, a Congressman selling out information on an informant to the mafia who used it to kill the defendant? Most people would say 'yes', but would also be very glad the crime was uncovered - somewhat inconsistent. If Media Matters supported hacking into the phones of Fox figures, despite the irony, the poetic justice, the fact I think Fox figures are doing a lot of wrong, I'd put this in the third category of 'wrong even if your opponents do it.' There's no evidence that's happened.
I suspect the condemnation of this comes largely from a reaction assuming sleazy tactics and information - assumptions that are not proven.
Of course, other condemnation comes from Fox supporters who would attack Media Matters if they simply called 911 after witnessing Murdoch shoot people on the street.
I'd like to see more on the type of information they planned to collect and use before saying if it was wrong.
Facebook
Twitter