I briefly looked at the attempt to discredit Former Director Robert Mueller. I saw where there is an investigation, so that was the right thing to do. I have said before if accusations of any kind are made about another and found to be false there is already a remedy called malicious prosecution.

It looks like the media feels some responsibility for a 20-year old that is about to ruin his life, so let me read a little more.

My initial reaction to Rachel Maddow's reporting on this is that it reminds me of that wayward right wing nut, James O'Keefe. It is unfortunate the right wing builds so much of it's political dialogue on falsehood and extremist rhetoric that could never apply to a democracy. It is unfortunate because sad people like O'Keefe want to turn a quick buck and is a Superstar wannabee. Well, Superstar journalists are found in major newspapers around the country with reputations that are iron clad and speak the truth to power.

...Finally, last night, (click here) Wohl tweeted: “Several media sources tell me that a scandalous story about Mueller is breaking tomorrow. Should be interesting. Stay tuned!” Various journalists who received the “Lorraine” email then started tweeting about it, and opining that it was shady and unconvincing....

This is where his plot turned into a mistake. He claimed to be in touch with journalists that would break the story. Journalists that have a lifelong history of rock solid reporting aren't going to put their reputations on the line for a story without solid facts. It seems to me what Wohl was attempting was to solidify his story to have several established journalists buy into the story, write about it and become invested in a way that they would make the story work. That is my impression.

To begin if any reputable journalist found out he or she was scammed or lied to they would immediately, if not sooner, rebut the story and issue retractions. Reputable news media would not stand for such nonsense if facts were reported to the management and would demand their journalists be accountable for the story.

So, for Wohl to assume conversations with more experienced peers meant the story was going forward is folly. The journalists reporting on the surge in sexual assault allegations are at The New Yorker and with Ronan Farrow. If Wohl believed he had significant information, that would have been the journalist to talk to that would bring him on in an appropriate and cautious way.

I think this all very unfortunate and at the present time it would seem as though Wohl has done nothing but cause his mother to change her phone number. He has caused himself a whole lot of trouble beginning with the idea "raw information" was actually newsworthy. Even Michael Moore only turns over raw footage after the facts are already known and won't include it in his films.

Any professional worth their salt puts in long hours to be sure the information published in news media or journals is worth telling.  That means sincere dedication to the profession and a reliance on peers to be the judge of their work. I would say, Wohl WAS on the right track, but, when he decided to control the outcome and force journalists to be defensive he lost his last best hope of becoming a Superstar.