I agree with the principle of there being consequences, but what I don't agree with is for the condemnation to be deliberate and for journalism to be used in se

I agree with the principle of there being consequences, but what I don't agree with is for the condemnation to be deliberate and for journalism to be used in service of that, rather than impartial reporting. When you describe the consequences as an immunological response, I think of something organic, more of an unguided process, not driven by awareness of meta-factors.