Thanks to the combined efforts of Glenn Reynolds and Dave Price, I think I have finally figured out why shoe-bomb-wearing terrorists caught trying to board planes weren't arrested. (Instead, the authorities played catch-and-release.)

I don't why it took me so long to realize this, but obviously, the explanation must be that they were investigative journalists, who as we all know are exempt from the law -- especially when they're working on stories that might as well be true.

And if you think about it, what better control can there be over "fact-checking" the "might as well be true" type stories than being a direct participant? If you are actually part of the news you're writing about, you know exactly what happened, and you're part of the facts.

This is why investigative journalists love to do stuff like buy guns they don't want, just so they can write a story about how easy it is to buy a gun. And you know, even if they violate the law in the process (as it was alleged some Boston reporters did), that's journalism, not crime. I mean, shouldn't journalists be able to do things like buy drugs on streetcorners to show how easy it is, or download kiddie porn as "background research"?

I was reminded of this when I read about the incident Dave Price linked, in which reporters posed as gay men holding hands in public, in the hope of triggering a reaction in some place they probably figure is loaded with bigots:

....ABC was working on a week-long project to see how people would react to things like public displays of affection by gay and lesbian couples. A FOX6 news reporter approached the RV and talked with an "actor" who said, "Yes, we are working for ABC News."

A South Precinct officer who spoke anonymously said he had received at least three or four reports from people who said they were disgusted over two men kissing in public. That officer says the ABC project is not a violation of the law and that ABC has a permit to park the RV.

An attempt to reach ABC News for comment has been unsuccessful.

....if people are offended by two men kissing that's their problem, and that kind of intolerance should be discouraged. It's just hard to imagine our media sending actors in Bush/Cheney t-shirts to anti-war rallies in San Francisco.

Notice also that people were offended to see men kissing. No crime in being offended. I have known people who have been offended by seeing heterosexuals kissing, and they were heterosexual themselves.

But I want to take this news hypothetical (or whatever you call a story that might as well be "true") a step further. Suppose the producers weren't content to get a few grimaces or tsks from passers-by, because they didn't think it was shocking enough to get the big ratings the story needed. Would it have been wrong of them to hire thuggish actors to act as violent-tempered anti-gay bigots? You know, reenact what might resemble a sort of "Brokeback Mountain," rednecks with tire irons stereotype? *

Seriously, how far does investigative journalism go? You might argue that it's one thing to set people up by posing as potential victims, but that fake attackers would go too far. Why? Suppose the purpose of the story was to "document the tolerance for hate," and the goal was to determine whether there were any good Hetero Samaritans in Bigottown, USA. The actors wouldn't even need to fake any violence; they could just hurl threats, obscenities, and insults.

I suspect there will be a lot more of this. Dave also links a fake swastika story in which the faker culprit admitted responsibility:

After evaluating evidence from a hidden camera positioned in response to the swastika postings in Mitchell Hall, University Police have linked the student who filed the complaints to several of the incidents.

Following a final interview with investigators today, the student admitted responsibility for those incidents.

In fact, wouldn't it be just as legitimate for journalists to hang nooses and then film reactions to them as it would for them to test people's reactions to swastikas?

Honestly, I see no reason why not. If it's journalism to have hired fakers running around provoking responses, what's the difference between one form of fakery and another?

Unless some provocateurs are more equal than others, I'm not seeing the basis for distinctions.

This reminds me of the much maligned Sacha Baron Cohen, aka "Borat." People were outraged by having been led astray, and they sued. Because he made them look bad. So why wasn't he just another "journalist" exposing public reactions to bigotry? Why should his "victims" deserve any more sympathy than people caught tsk-tsking at gays kissing on Main Street? Or students who were "misled" by "fake" nooses and "fake" swastikas. (Sorry about the quotes. The philosophical question about whether a noose can be fake is a bit beyond the scope of this post.)

As to what the fakery that might as well be real should be called, I don't know.

Boratinization of the news beats boredom!

* I guess the theory is that if bigotry can't be found, encourage it. If it can't be encouraged, create it!

UPDATE: My thanks to the post's author Dave Price (aka "Tall Dave") for leaving a comment pointing out that he is not Dean Esmay. (I apologize for my inability to read.) Corrections made accordingly.