My friends, I come not to praise journalism, but to bury it. And appropriately enough, like last week’s fish, it will be wrapped in the pages of the New York Post, which this morning — as it does each and every day — proved that while sex sells, so does nastiness in general.

The definition of journalism is “writing characterized by the direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation.” Call me crazy, but the following sentence would seem to be a tad less than objective:

“Unwelcome Libyan thug Moammar Khadafy biefly found a comfy spot to rest his foul head yesterday.”

Thug? Foul head?

The piece in question goes on to say Khadafy received “a zero’s welcome”, calls him an “international pariah” and even imply that the visiting dignitary  — which is what he is, no matter ones stance on his politics — prefers living in outhouses.

Were this an editorial — the section of a newspaper in which writers are free to opine to their hearts content — it would be a different story, but this is considered a “news story” by the good folks at the New York Post… who actually called the man a “desert rat” on the front page.

This is not an abheration but rather an every-day occurence in the pages of the popular New York City paper. Interestingly, if one flips through and looks closely at the source for stories, a distinction quickly becomes clear: Those obtained form legitimate wire services such as the Associated Press are practically offensive-adjective free while those penned in house have the lurid appeal of a tawdry romance novel.

So freely does the paper weave fact and opinion together that there seems little need for an editorial page. Given the words used to describe Khadafy in the “news” story it hardly comes as a surprise when Hugo Chavez is dubbed a “gasbag.”

This is not to say that the men in question are deserving of respect, but rather to point out that it is the job of a journalist to but aside all bias and report objectively. Perhaps the Post might want to consider hiring a few people who actually understand the difference between informing the public and bloviating. Then again, the Post is owned by good ol’ Rupert Murdoch, and if there’s one thing we know about the man — who also happens to own Fox News Channel — it’s that rhetoric and fear-mongering are far more valuable to him than facts or even, God forbid, civility.

As Murdoch’s fellow tycoon, Warren Buffet, once said, “The smarter the journalists are, the better off society is, for to a degree, people read the press to inform themselves… and the better the teacher, the better the student body.” If that’s true, I can only assume that the readers of the New York Post are what we might politely call the “special kids.”

At long last, we have an official answer to the eternal, often rhetorical question “How low can you go?” And perhaps not surprisingly, it comes from the staff of The National Enquirer.

According to Brooke Shields — herself no stranger to controversy — a reporter for the tawdry tabloid checked the celeb’s mother — who suffers from dementia — out of a clinic. Teri Shields was later found, unharmed, lunching at a nearby restaurant with the freelance “journalist” — and I use the term loosely, and although at this time no charges have been filed, people.com reports the miffed actress as saying, “I intend to take every lawful action against all who were involved or who authorized this dispicable act.”

Although the tab claims that the aging woman and the reporter were “friends”, Shields is having none of it. And given the tabloids record — let’s not forget they were successfully sued by Carol Burnett after wrongly claiming the actress, daughter of two alcoholics, had been intoxicated in public; or that the rag ran a false story claiming that two male members of kidnapped teen Elizabeth Smart’s family were involved in a “gay-sex ring”  – I’m going to side with Shields (despite that God-awful Lipstick Jungle debacle).

Now I’ve long believed that having crap made up about you in the press is a byproduct of celebrity. (Someday, perhaps my own name will be linked to sex scandals, at which point I can only hope they photoshop me into a pic with porn star Travis Wade or someone equally attractive). But there is a line, and I have to think when you smuggle someone’s dementia-addled mom out of a nursing home, it’s been crossed.

So the time has come to draw a line in the sand. Want to make the world a better place — and save yourself a little money at the same time? Stop buying The National Enquirer. Listen, if you still feel the need to read salacious gossip about celebs, there are a million other sources out there, including a dozen websites you can cruise for free (and without feeling embarassed when you’re caught paging through a trashy tabloid in the checkout aisle of the Piggly-Wiggly). You’ll thank me later… and so will those whose reputations have been trashed by those laboring for the tabloid and mistakenly believing themselves to be working journalists.

During Bill O’Reilly’s recent sit-down with David Letterman, the Fox News Channel personality worked hard to separate himself from “entertainers” such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, insisting at one point that he is a journalist (before quickly backpedal to say that he’d once been a member of the working media).

But one of the tactics O’Reilly’s show has used with increasing frequency — unleashing pitbullish producer Jesse Watters to harass reluctant interviewees — has come under fire from various quarters.  Interestingly in a piece on this very topic airing earlier tonight, one of O’Reilly’s own guests referred to the tactic as “ambushing”, and the host himself declared it a “legitimate brand of journalism [that has been] practiced ever since television news was invented.”

Anyone ever remember Walter Cronkite or Edward R. Murrow using these tactics?

Apparently never having seen his own show (and who can blame him), O’Reilly went on to describe the producer in question as being “polite as possible, having a conversation anyone would have” as a series of clips which seemed to validate those points unspooled… but was not shown on The O’Reilly Factor were the endless clips of Watters refusing to leave private property when asked or using much more aggressive tactics. (It’s worth noting that O’Reilly’s show has regularly taken to task the paparazzi of the world for using this exact same tactic in covering celebrities.)

All of which raises the question: Is this, as O’Reilly insists, a long-standing, valid journalistic tactic, or is the producer’s behavior rude, crude and socially unacceptable? Is this what journalism has become, and if so, where is the line drawn when it comes to covering a story?