"War of the Worlds" is the classic example, like shouting fire in a crowded theater - which also is, I know, not the true delineation of free speech considered by the Supreme Court. Take these as cultural touchstones or even fables which many of us in America still refer to in service of illustrating a moral (in the Aesopean sense), and so take the reference in the spirit in which it was meant. Maybe I should have implicated the Pied Piper or the Boy Who Cried Wolf. My original point stands, and debating about WotW doesn't change it. It is:
To whose benefit is it to commit arson in the sphere of public information, to cause panic and to obliterate trust in journalism?
Invective implies that this question is driven from some personal anger; it isn't. It's driven by a moral belief in the virtue of telling the truth, and not spreading rumors or lies.
