I hardly know where to begin! If it not for the fact that Jacko is probably scraping the bottom of the barrel for a "Freemasons in Service" Exposee, I would be much more scathing in my reply!
The fact that a bloody journalist can be so high and mighty beggers belief! I will, however, leave the coherent, reasoned arguments to Mr W - thank you.
The fact that Mr W's line of retort was so easily avoided simply adds fuel to the argument that we should not be trying to strifle a benevolent "secret" society - we need to be looking very carefully at the narrow minded biggots who scrawl for the tabloids.
In typically journalistic fashion, Jacko avoids dealing with the real issues in shades of gray and goes for the 'black and white' approach.
These idiots hide behind the anonimity of a newspaper, pushing out all sorts of rubbish in the name of democracy, when all they are trying to do is sell enough papers to justify their salaries.
How many public figures have been ruined over the years by the press? Whether sportsman, pop star or politician - noone is safe from them. Whether they deserved it or not, who made the press Judge, Jury and Executioner?
Freemasons?! You're barking up the wrong tree mate. The freemasons are a convenient and easy target for narrow minded fools when the real news has dried up. Unless the major editors and journalists are all freemasons then the conspiracy is not that deep. (And if they are all freemasons it only goes to show that there are some bad apples in every organization?!)
The press has far more power, and corrupting influence, than the freemasons will ever have. Only, your organization is not the easy target that freemasons are. How many politicians have tried to take the press on and where has it left them?
Self-regulation? What a joke! When has the press showed any real responsibility and self-control? Never, unless there was an alterior motive for it. I don't know what kind of reporter you are Jacko, but it patently doesn't involve any serious research.
Now, if you are going to sling mud then, as the Tories are so fond of saying (in paraphrase), let it have "substance" and not "spin".