Tampa Bay Times knew in advance about gyrocopter landing on Capitol grounds . . .

The next time someone posts a link from the fraudulent "fact checkers" at PolitiFact, know that their bosses at the Tampa Bay Times - which runs that propaganda web site disguised as objective journalism - observe no limits in their willingness to commit journalistic fraud for their own benefit. And that even includes covering up a crime they know in advance is going to happen so they can get a scoop.

You probably heard about yesterday's little incident on the Capitol grounds in Washington, when a 61-year-old wise # named Doug Hughes intentionally breached the Capitol's air space and illegally landed a gyrocopter for the purpose of, I guess, "calling attention to the need for campaign finance reform." So what does this have to do with the Tampa Bay Times? Turns out he told them months ago that he was going to do it. And knowing full well that it could cause a major panic at the Capitol, these fearless purveyors of journalistic integrity kept everything on the QT so Hughes wouldn't chicken out and deny them their big scoop. As the Washington Post reports, journalism ethicists see no gray areas here. What the Times did stinks to high Heaven:

---

The paper was well positioned to cover the unfolding story, with reporter Ben Montgomery live-tweeting the extraordinary sight of Hughes hovering over the Mall. Given the potential for chaos, however, the question is whether the paper should have done more, such as calling the Secret Service days in advance to alert officials that Hughes planned to enter restricted airspace with his one-man flying machine. “We spent hours and hours talking about the ethics of this,” said Montgomery, who first encountered Hughes when the postal worker called him at work and told him his plans. “Ultimately, we felt comfortable that he was on the authorities’ radar and that he was not homicidal or suicidal. He had his plan down to a T. Is it our job to call attention to it?”

Yes, numbnuts, it is your job. What school of thought in journalism ethics says that when someone informs you of his intention to commit a criminal act, you have a responsibility to hold onto that information and wait to see if he actually does it? And where do journalists get off thinking they have no responsibility to alert authorities about the imminent commission of a crime if they know about it? It is no defense of the Times to point out that they called the Secret Service 20 minutes before the stunt when they knew about it months in advance. As it was, no one got hurt, but the event still disrupted the day's business. And there was always the risk that something could have happened. What if authorities had decided to open fire on the gyrocopter? Now you've got bullets flying around in the air. What is the potential for things to go wrong in that scenario? Besides, this is either a journalistic principle or it isn't. If a guy calls the Tampa Bay Times and says he intends to assassinate President Obama, you've got two choices. You could say, hey, we need to alert the Secret Service since they'll need time to sober up and stop the attack. We don't want anything to happen to the president, and we're Americans first. On the other hand you could say, hey, this would be one hell of a big scoop! Now, you say, don't be silly. Messing around with a gyrocopter isn't the equivalent of assassinating the president. And of course it's not. But the journalistic principle is exactly the same. Is it OK for journalists who know a crime is about to be committed to say nothing and just wait for it to happen so they can report the story? And if your answer is that it depends on the crime, then you're trusting these same journalists to make the call about whether the public deserves the benefit of protection from criminals in any given situation. Here's another scenario: Let's say the guy says he's going to land a gyrocopter, but what he doesn't tell the idiot reporter is that he's attaching a bomb to it. Gosh. Gee. Maybe we should have said something. Ya think, ace? It is not OK for the media to sit on advance knowledge of a crime, for two reasons: 1. Their status as journalists doesn't exempt them from basic responsibilities as citizens; 2. The media is populated by dishonest, cynical fools who can't be trusted to act in the best interests of the public. Especially at the Tampa Bay Times. Did I mention that the Tampa Bay Times runs PolitiFact? The only fact you can count on here is that you can't trust the Tampa Bay Times - either to tell you the truth or to exercise good judgment. They won't.