That's a bit of a stretch, I'd say. In this specific case, unless the mayor's tenure is actually benefiting drug crime more than a $200,000 cash infusion would, I don't see how this could be a net positive.
If it were a matter of "give an illegal bribe to an aide who filmed something illegal being done by an already-corrupt official," that would be different. It's still not "life-saving research" unless that corruption is actually costing lives, but it fits with your argument.
I don't think that's what's going on here. The author seems right on target: They're trying to do something that will incidentally (but obviously) fund a whole lot more harm than it's likely to save.
If we think about it as an isolated case then I completely agree.
However, I think that if we can get this video out there, it might help start a discussion about corruption "raise awareness" and all that kind of hard to measure stuff.
My feeling is that the positive is that this doesn't just go away because a couple of people weren't compelled to do the right thing and just release the video. It's not a totally clean victory having to pay these guys, but IMHO well worth it.
Then again, maybe people just don't care, see: Marion Barry.
What's wrong with writing a story about the supposed video and then notifying the appropriate authorities? Is not stories about the video enough to get the ball rolling? If these people are attempting to blackmail the mayor, then law enforcement will get involved, and surely the truth of the video will eventually see light of day.
Urgh. Not all law enforcement is corrupt. And if you don't give it a chance, watch it fail, and then write a story about that, you aren't helping with the corruption.
Of course not, but I think the safe bet is to go to some kind of media as opposed to the government with any complaints about / evidence of government corruption.
Comments
I would contest that exposing corruption, even if it requires paying off some unsavory people, is a form of "lifesaving research".
That's a bit of a stretch, I'd say. In this specific case, unless the mayor's tenure is actually benefiting drug crime more than a $200,000 cash infusion would, I don't see how this could be a net positive.
If it were a matter of "give an illegal bribe to an aide who filmed something illegal being done by an already-corrupt official," that would be different. It's still not "life-saving research" unless that corruption is actually costing lives, but it fits with your argument.
I don't think that's what's going on here. The author seems right on target: They're trying to do something that will incidentally (but obviously) fund a whole lot more harm than it's likely to save.
If we think about it as an isolated case then I completely agree.
However, I think that if we can get this video out there, it might help start a discussion about corruption "raise awareness" and all that kind of hard to measure stuff.
My feeling is that the positive is that this doesn't just go away because a couple of people weren't compelled to do the right thing and just release the video. It's not a totally clean victory having to pay these guys, but IMHO well worth it.
Then again, maybe people just don't care, see: Marion Barry.
Edit: toned it down a little.
What's wrong with writing a story about the supposed video and then notifying the appropriate authorities? Is not stories about the video enough to get the ball rolling? If these people are attempting to blackmail the mayor, then law enforcement will get involved, and surely the truth of the video will eventually see light of day.
Surely law enforcement will act in favor of the public good and not their corrupt politician buddies, surely.
Urgh. Not all law enforcement is corrupt. And if you don't give it a chance, watch it fail, and then write a story about that, you aren't helping with the corruption.
Of course not, but I think the safe bet is to go to some kind of media as opposed to the government with any complaints about / evidence of government corruption.