Again, there is an effort to censor news.

And this is a noble effort, the request to not name or show the picture of a serial or spree killer.

OK, you don't name the killer in Connecticut. Does it matter less then when ten adults, or perhaps just one person is killed? Do you not name that killer? Do you not name anyone who commits a crime that is attention-seeking, such as protestors or that guy who threw shoes at President George W. Bush? It's a slippery slope.

The argument is these mass killers want attention. I don't think that is primarily what drives them, though. I think the act is the attention they want, bringing horror into the world, more than infamy for them. Of course, there's no answer for all killers. But it seems the primary goal is to hurt and cause pain.

Our business it give information, not to give some of the information. The idea of not naming rape victims makes sense, because of the tendency to not report the crime because of the humiliation. But then domestic violence advocates ask us to not name accusers in such cases. That's tough, but then it leads to others saying they don't want to be named.

And are sex offenders usually initially victims themselves? Again, if you ask to withhold some information, then what right do you have to release any information — there's always someone who won't want to be named. I've had witnesses in trial beg not to be named, some reasonably and some unreasonably.

Now, there is common sense and good taste. One idea that I've supported is not putting the shooter's picture on the front page in these cases, focusing rightfully on the victims. But that is common sense because that is what the audience wants.

We have to work knowing how the audience will react, going with it sometimes and sometimes against it. But excluding information is not the answer and not going to stop these tragedies.

Another apology I'm not buying came from the Australian DJs who pranked a hospital and its nurse, mocking England's queen as the world and Matt Lauer wondered how the pregnant princess was doing.

OK, I shouldn't gripe about Lauer's show and its almost unpatriotic love of everything royal. I've got nine months of that ahead of me.

But the apologies offered by the now-canned DJs whose prank may have proven fatal rings very hallow. Of course, they are sorry that the person they pranked may have committed suicide. They never intended that.

A gap in their story: They never expected to get through. But if they taped the segment and they got through, why air the segment if that was not what the attended.

(Further bullshit from the station, they said they tried to call the hospital five times after the prank and before it aired. Hmm. They get through when pranking but can't get through to alert hospital to impending airing....right.)

Their apology included phrases like, "this has happened" to nurse Jacintha Saldanha. No, not what happened, but what "we did."

However, they weren't to blame for the death.  One cannot know that someone may commit suicide over an action. What about laying people off from their jobs? What about a bad grade?

Now, impersonating someone could be a fraud, so perhaps there is a crime; but to say this prank or impersonation caused a suicide is going too far. Sure, fire the DJs. Sure, hate and stop listening to the station. Write an angry letter. But they can't be charged with a crime or, I think, even sued. Someone committing suicide is making their own decision to end their life. It's too bad it happened. And it was a stupid prank, but these pranks go on all the time, and we can't legislate good taste.

And they've tried and tried over history to do so.

There's no way a jury will ever find Prof. Kwame Kilpatrick guilty of corruption, as the meek and mild former mayor could never have done all that he's accused of...... is one hope, I think, of the defendant's choice of bow tie and glasses as his stare-the-jury-in-the-eyes outfit.

Here is an account of the prosecutor's opening statements, alleging the former mayor's hunger to fill his deep pockets.

Even though most people think the case is a slam dunk, considering his honor's continued arrogance, we know it is anything but a sure win, considering co-defendant Bobby Ferguson's mistrial with an 11-1 hung jury.

My guess is the outfit doesn't work; in fact, it would do the opposite to me, make me wonder what he's hiding. But, again, it just takes one juror.

Photo is courtesy The Detroit News. 

So The Masters went to a man named Charl, but it was Tiger who had to make CBS's day and weekend. Tiger Woods stormed back as Rory McIlroy crumbled, who started the day four strokes up from second but ended out of the large -10 crowd in the final holes.

McIlroy's 80 may be remembered when considering final day slip ups, but Tiger Woods would have dominated the story had he been the one to win.

But just getting onto the leaderboard this late during a major was enough for the TV crowd, I'm guessing.

I'm pleased that the winner was Schwartzel, the South African, because he relied not so much on someone crumbling but because he made the shots when he had to. (Of course, that 8o helped).