This is almost akin to a celebrity getting upset and punching a paparazzi. It happens due to stupidity, human emotion and rash behavior. Is it right? No, but it does shed light on some issues.

Reporters and journalists can and do scrutinize people. However, what has become of journalism is that for sites like Pando Daily/Tech Crunch/? etc. they are gossip magazines about Silicon Valley business people and software developers. Not only are they talking about the companies, they are talking about the personal lives of the people that make up the companies.

Given the work/life balance of most startups and successful companies, it is tough to judge the differentiation between a tech company's executives. There are reasonable legal precedents being set for common tort law with celebrities, however when do the executives of a company become a 'Public Figure' and lose their right to privacy? Why is it okay to follow someone and publish everything they say and do?

The same thing, of course, can be said for journalists. The lines are being blurred all around.

these aren't blurry lines. if Emil Michael feels like a journalist stepped over a line in reporting then he should have filed a civil suit. that's not what he suggested. he suggested utilizing millions of dollars of the resources of a billion dollar company to engage a campaign of systematic intimidation and harassment against journalists he didn't like.

Ah, yes. Two wrongs make a right. Of course they do.

Is that really your position? Or do you want somebody in the room to be a responsible grownup?

(Of course, preferably both sides would be grownups, but one side crawling into the gutter does not excuse the other side for also doing so.)

I agree. But does it justify idly suggesting, in frustration, that one do so?

There's scrutiny, and then there's repeatedly provoking people until they react. Has it occurred to you that "journalists" can be powerful and wealthy too, and just as sociopathic?

they sure can. we should have journalists who cover other journalists too.

So, journalists get a pass when they 'investigate' someone, but the people they're investigating can't do a 'counter-investigation'? Are journalists some kind of special beings?

You're equating the two kinds of investigating. The "counter-investigation" you're talking about is retaliatory — write something we don't like and we'll punish you with details about your personal life.

Journalists are not special beings, but it is typically presumed that they report in good faith, and without ulterior motives. I know that isn't always true, but it's true often enough that I think the burden of proof would be on the people being investigated to prove that the journalist's intent was malicious.

How would they prove the journalist's intent was malicious without conducting an investigation of their own?