I offer here a few thoughts on the heated plans that have occupied all too much of the media this week. I decline to name the situation, nor especially the guy who started it. In the moment, you know of whom I speak and why. Later, let him fade into obscurity.

I think this guy, and he's nothing more than that—just some guy, should not be given this media attention. He's little more than a terrorist, though that word is bandied about perhaps too freely. Certainly he seemed unconcerned for the well-documented consequences to others of his irresponsible act in service of a highly questionable cause, and he seemed intent on being the center of attention and the center of power. His message had little to do with any recognized religion. I think he was just using that cloak to disguise a much more selfish goal.

Both speech and religion are protected activities, but his actions were neither. His was a message of hate wrapped in incitement. If hate is what religion has become and incitement passes for political discourse, we're in a sorry state. But it was a mess of a situation, magnified by undue media coverage. And, sadly, his doing what he did puts those important protections at risk because people end up chipping away at those protections to get to him. We are all made poorer by this episode.

In the online world, you'd not call him a terrorist but perhaps a troll. The usual advice about trolls is not to feed them. But we fed him. And now he's hungry for more.

And when his event was canceled, or postponed, or whatever he finally fudged it to be in order to keep from getting arrested but to say in the limelight, others stood up as copycats. That's bad, too. It's why you don't bargain with terrorists, because it breeds a way of doing things that you don't want. Obama was right not to engage him. This troll just wanted to be in control. You could see him when he heard of the copycats issuing orders, trying to take charge, to appear like he was the leader. He was clearly loving the hope of that, though a little panicked that someone else might beat him out for the role. And we had promoted him to contender by giving him a name and a presence on TV while he exercised his self-appointed fantasy of being a power broker. It's something he as an individual would never otherwise have had. The media made him into the celebrity he became. The media bears substantial culpability in this.

And as for covering it, it's nice that many media outlets said they wouldn't show pictures. But can they speak for all? Someone will take the pictures. It's too easy. And so they'll be sold. The dollars will be irresistable. And then it will be a race for other media to match. And we'll all pay the price for that.

In part I think this is the effect of having a media based on advertising rather than subscription. Advertising is not about delivering the first-order product, the news. It's about delivering second-order products, the ads. The news and the ethics that might surround it fall quickly prey to the dollars that will come to someone willing to show the film. And then it's a race, who can spiral most quickly to the bottom of the ethical hole that's been dug. We won't have news that works in our interest until we make it worth a news agency's time economically to deliver us product because we're paying for it. It's at times like now that one can feel the effect of the bankruptcy of news organizations because it's all about the tabloid draw rather than the substance.

And finally, to hypocrisy. I was raised thinking that I lived in the one nation in the world where one could burn the flag and not be unpatriotic. It's that understanding that criticizing the government is part of our tradition that allows us to be outraged when political dissidents elsewhere should be silenced. The Republicans have been chipping away at that for years, claiming that it's not speech but inciting. They say it's not possible to quietly ignore the provocations of a private citizen with a lighter. They say burning a flag amounts to “fighting words.” And then they stand idly by as this man does what he did this week in the name of religion and speech. They want us to believe that although burning our flag are fighting words, burning someone else's Bible must be tolerated on principle. Spare me. If they are the party of principle, where are their principles? It's time to take a stand on whether this is just good old fashioned fun or something no one should ever be suggesting. If this kind of action is acceptable, let's never hear talk of a flag burning amendment again. If it's not, let's hear more outrage and in a timelier way. Pulling out the popcorn and sitting in the easy chair to watch the fireworks with amusement doesn't cut it.