Article here questions the virtue of joining an angry mob. It's at WSJ so may be behind a paywall.
So Weinstein turns out to be everything the media was hoping Don
Trump might be. His problem was not what he did, but that he got outed
by the part of the press that is somehow still practicing journalism.
Worse, it turns out that enough people follow that part of the media
that the other half was forced to acknowledge it. A perfect example of the Alinsky rule about demanding the other side live up to their stated doctrines.
Is there no virtue in joining an angry mob? In theory, miscreants are
dealt with by the justice system which investigates, arrests, tries,
and punishes wrongdoers. As everyone knows however, sometimes the system
gets corrupted. Blind eyes are turned, friends are let off with a
warning, trials end with wrist slaps or dropped charges, and business
resumes as usual. At some point though, that part of the public who are not members
of the good 'ol boys club, see an injustice as being beyond what
reasonable people should be expected to tolerate and someone winds up
decorating a lamp post. This is frequently enough to cause the rest of
the chain to get to a reasonable degree, more in step with the community
Is this virtuous behavior? Maybe. Maybe not. But sometimes it's necessary.