Oh . . . there's a lot to get at here, but first:
I love the title of this thread. I'm actually surprised one of the local highjackers (you know who you are
) hasn't busted in here with an M.C. Hamer meme . . . yet.
I love this story to pieces and was actually glad to see it just kind of fizzle out at the end. If you think that's a hard thing to read, try writing it sometime. This story is about the corrupting influence of power and the inherent danger of wielding power you don't understand. The proper use of what is, in this case, divine power must be very difficult. But I try to imagine not wielding such power, if I had it, and simply can't do it. Whatever else I don't know, I know that my temperament is not suited to have it within my power to metaphorically snap the necks of everyone who -- in my estimation -- deserves it.
Beyond that, I enjoyed most of what the story had to say about what "journalism" is -- and is not -- in this fine new age. It's been long and many since I went to j-school, but when I did the second thing we were taught -- after spelling the names correctly -- was attribution. Sources. "A source for each fact," as professor Higgins says. That makes me laugh. Peruse most publications nowadays and you will find that the word "source" has itself become a source in the brave new world of the 21st century.
"According to sources ... "
"Reliable sources ... "
"Sources close to the investigation ... "
Pah!
Time was, we were taught to provide at least one (and preferably two) identifiable and reliable sources for anything in a story that was to be presented as fact and, that the reader could not reasonably be expected to already know. That's out the window, now, for the most part. Of course, the modern "journalist" will tell you that he couldn't possibly reveal his sources ... else said sources would surely dry up.
Watergate -- if you remember what that was -- is usually the catch-all example to point out this fallacy. Good ol' Woodward and Bernstein. But I say if your source doesn't have the courage of his convictions, how reliable is he, and why is he talking at all? And beyond that, this business of "protecting" sources is awfully convenient cover for simply making stuff up, if that's what you want to do.
Not that any of that has much to do with
Obits. It's just a pet peeve of mine as an old guy, who likes to think things were better at some unspecified time in the past, even though they probably weren't.
Ultimately, this strikes me as a "What Would You Do?" story. You have the power. What would you do?
You didn't like the ending? What would you do?
Like in
Rty's spoiler.
It's fun to think about.