There They Go Again. Risking A Life for a Great Story.

While listening to NPR two days ago, I heard the voices of two women, whose pronunciations announced their Canadian citizenship to me. It turns out I was listening to a Canadian Broadcast called "As it Happens," or something to that effect. Although I do not live far from Canada, as usual, it's worlds away from me, even though I've been there three times (Toronto).

Given the state of U.S. law enforcement, I'm not likely to leave the country again, honestly, so my citizenship isn't questioned as it was during my last trip. I work for myself, so come and go as I please, which made me suspect, I guess. Whatever. So, beware, you can carry a U.S. passport, but that doesn't mean you're welcome. That's another story, but there's a connection there somewhere about protecting human borders, and human lives. No, this is not a debate about immigration - as that debate has been won already, so why bother chatting about it?

No, today's diatribe is about how news people in the comfort of their protective zones, tell "as it happens" news stories that put the lives of their subjects in jeopardy.

Does anybody remember Geraldo Rivera playing platoon leader, drawing troop movements in the sand on live television? Well, here are some more less than worldly radio hosts seeking to interview a 20-year-old named Mustapha LNU (only they do mention his last name, but I refuse to mimic their shortsightedness). If you're not appalled at the paradoxical insensitivity of the radio host to the plight of her subject, explain to me how this interview is justified?

Is this a Saturday Night Live spoof or what? This woman asks matter of fact questions of a hunted down man, and has now identified him to the world. I hope they used a false name, but even if they did, we find that his mother is a member of Parliament. Given the status of women in that country, his mother is probably the equivalent of Nancy Pelosi (by comparison). The Canadian host gets all the gruesome details of the plight of the 20 year-old. They identify him by name, divulge that his mother is a member of Parliament. Apparently, he's been threatened to join the Taliban and was beaten for 18 days, watched his friend beheaded, etc. Apparently, he's also getting telephone threats. On his cell phone. Like the cell phone he was speaking to the Canadian interviewer.

So, here's the logic. Let's tell the story about a man who is in trouble, by getting him to say more about the people who are threatening him, and by so doing, he's created more of a reason for the malefactors to badger, harass, and beat him even more. Now, we're not talking about actors who admit that they smoke pot (and could get in trouble - but they don't seem to). In this case the Taliban has evidence of his collaboration with the occupiers of Afghanistan. I have no power of clairvoyance and I hope I'm wrong about this one, but I think this story is one that should not have been aired. He's in friggin' Afghanistan, trying to stay out of trouble. A 20-year old is too young to understand the implications of his actions when an English-speaking radio announcer is on the line - obviously it's important. In fact, he is even obsequious to the host, thanking her profusely for taking the time to tell his story.

"They're not going to leave you alone, are they?" Mustapha was asked. "No, especially now." And you've made a wonderful slam-dunk case for him to come to your country, to get asylum. If that was the goal, I hope Mustapha is there by now, Otherwise, you've possibly shortened the number of days he has to stay alive.

Hey dudettes - great as it happens story! But I sure don't want to hear the sequel.

As the name of my blog commands -- there are times when the media should just -- SHUTUP! This was one of them. The hosts were well-meaning, but they might have done more damage to the very story they sought to bring to light. Great scoop. Wish it hadn't aired. I hope his 15 minutes of fame are not his last.

Sphere: Related Content

This is Journalism that can Save Lives - Tonight.

I never tell anybody what to watch. But anyone with a conscience should consider tuning into this. Call PBS what you want -- I call them courageous for this episode. Click the title link.

Sphere: Related Content

No Comets as Wolf Blitzes through Debates with Dashing Aplomb (I couldn't resist) - No Red Nosed Journalists after this debate

I was unable to watch the debates last night - mainly because I forgot that they were being televised. See what happens when you don't watch the news! So I can't rant and rave about whether the media was fair in its treatment of the Democratic candidates. You'll find lots of comments about the debates on the New York Times website.

My uneducated opinion of the debates are further heightened by my general thoughts about Wolf Blitzer of CNN. Wolf is the quintessential reporter in every sense of the word. He speaks at the same heightened decibel whether asking a question about what time the basketball game airs on another channel (yawn) or whether arms for hostages is a good concept worthy of a second look. At all times, Blitzer forces out his words from his craggy voice. I see him as a grown up Munchkin whose voice adjusted to his new height, but which still gives his beginnings away. Or he's dastardly pirate on a ship on the weekend who hijacks boats in international waters for fun, then puts his suit on during the week. His deadpan eyes give away no sense of feeling whatsoever, and he'd pull off the same seriousness were he to wear diapers and a tight tank top on the show. He is the perfect automaton newscaster whom I have never seen do anything greater than let the sides of his mouth motion upwards into an 1/8th of a smile. I wonder if he isn't a robot from Journalandia, the land where men and women were taught to just give the facts, and disappear behind your words. But, given the purpose of this site, to not denigrate them all, I'd say let him be a moderator. I'm okay with that -- so my ravings are not an indictment of Mr. Blitzer. I do think he handles hard journalism where facts and figures reign, or discussing the chess game of international politics. I will admit, however, that I couldn't bear him during the Hurricane Katrina disaster, as he had no way of relating to the
emotional people that he was interviewing. He didn't need to dab his eyes or get Tammy Faye teary-eyed (I wish her better health, by the way). He's just Wolf. What can I say.

What I did find interesting in trolling the web for others' opinions was a website that allows you to trace the affiliations of newscasters>, ostensibly to prove how they are one big media left-leaning Tower of Pisa monolith. I'm not sure if the same muckracking website exists to ferret out the affiliations of the Right-Wingers (besides looking at whoever graduated from ten degrees of "Halliburton" employment rolls) Take your chances using the site, as it's not very user friendly. It takes literally five minutes to download names and linkages. There should be a better way of linking candidates.

Anyway, the problem I have with this site's premise to show the conspiracies of the Democratic media, is that any group of people with similar interests is going to "cross-breed." To not accept that fact that people move around over the years, and they don't forget each other is like saying that nobody in baseball switches teams. So to put this forth as some kind of left wing conspiracy is rubbish. The right have only had a "public voice" since the Pubs Got Their Groove Back, with Newt Gingrich - their feckless leader, who made it cool to be a Republican (maybe for the first time ever), so I'm not sure the bias against the left wing is justified. Let's face it, Republicans used to be the party of money who was too elevated to dwell amongst the peons. Their policies have failed them, and now they have to wash dishes like the rest of us. We've just been washing them longer. It's not bias -- its acquaintanceships. The trick is making sure that those acquaintanceships do not cause you to lose your individual thought processes.

So, CNN scored, I guess and the pairing with Suzanne Malveaux - the modern day version of , one of my favorite actresses. And even Chris Matthews on Harball, tonight, seemed to have taken a chill pill to do what he does best: ask questions to tease out an answer, short of making you want to scream at him for inserting his opinion. I find it interesting that he contemplating a Senate run in Pennsylvania some time ago. Although I hate the word, that's H-U-B-R-I-S (yes, in caps). Just declare your candidacy, Chris, and then we'll understand why you pontificate so much - you're a frustrated politician in the same way that I'm a frustrated writer whose success would defeat the purpose of the blog so I'm content. Excuse me, Chris? Oh It's YOUR SHOW!! Yeah, I know.

But it still gets me when he inserts his opinions. A journalist giving an opinion of any topic is the equivalent of a Tennis chair umpire sitting in the middle of a match, and excitedly clapping his hands, gleefully, when his favored player wins a volley. American journalists can learn lessons from watching the refs in a cricket match. Consummate actors, those Brits, from Queen to the grubby Dickens urchins - they are the masters of the poker face. So Chris, subdued and almost somnambulant compared to his usual hyperbole, softly made mention of how everyone put the blame on the media (as if it was incredulous). But he didn't stay on that topic for long. That was a non-starter. He knew it and everyone else did: in the debates of 2 weeks ago, Tim Russert lost the adulation of a small base of people who thought him to be truly biased. And, then there's the wife. Maybe Chris Matthews got a talking to by his wife, a real journalist (and one of my favs when I lived in DC) about how to just get the facts, then tell the facts and stop spewing his apopleptic opinions for no one to care about - because you're not a politician.

Not much to say today. I'm going to lay off of Chris Matthews for now. I'm starting to sound like a Fox supporter (Shepard does wear nicer eye shadow).

Did this bore you reading as much as it did me writing it? Oh, well. I'm just trying to keep my 3 visitors happy! :)

Sphere: Related Content

Less News = Life Fulfilling

Okay actors - the following paragraph is supposed to be read in a fast and curt manner, using a Contralto or Baritone newscasters voice:

BREAKING NEWS: Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee is surging ahead in the polls [you know, the pre-poll polling sampling before the Iowa caucus - the real poll].

And the news outlets are shocked! What? There's gambling going on in this casino! We can't dictate the front runners, after all? All the hours spent ignoring Huckabee and boosting their chosen favorites didn't pan out as expected? Surprise!

I know! Maybe we should all do what Iowa is doing and damn the news, think for yourself instead! [Now... chew your cigar and walk around in a Tuxedo, hunched over].

So why should anyone listen to the media. Period? Why do we watch them? Try though it might - the media can't predict the future. Not one of them. However, I'll put my faith in weather casters - just a tad bit more - at least the Doplar speaks for them. The media is as useful as yesterday's news. All that screaming and yelling and rancor and shouts and insults are about topics they know no more about than the rest of us. They just have a highly visible public forum that puts them on pedestals. The irony is that not all of what they say is written by them -- and it's vetted -- unlike day-time television for the stay-at-home Mom's who learn their news through used-to-be newscasters who still get paid or silenced for their opinions on The View.
And I'm not even a Whoopi Goldberg fan.




But back to our newscasters, who are elevated to rock star status for having an ear piece that feeds them their lines -- or a teleprompter and, just in case, they can show that they can read paper copy on their desk (or so we think). And when they aren't hung up in all of the wiring, they're just like you and me, only sitting on a stage instead of a comfortable living room couch that fits to your body's permanent imprint. [Wait -- those are couches and comfortable chairs they're sitting on]!

While we sit, watching newscasters sit, we can't do what they can: prognosticate, pontificate and exercise our right to brainwash under the guise of performing a public service.

For some of us, our souls have not been sold to rock and roll, but sewed or stitched to the couch and television, the tandem mind and body snatchers. We can sit all day and watch the same newscasts repeat themselves on 3 major cable news channels. And while digesting the bad news, we can add bad food (well, actually good, right) to our stomachs - mixed nuts, half-of a candy-bar, an egg-salad sandwich, cheese puffs, a root beer, and cookies -- I'm not finished, just embarrassed - and then we wonder where the pounds came from I'm going to the gym today, guys. I really will).

Just how did we let the media, which used to take up only one half-hour of our time, thirty years ago become a 24-hour extreme? I'll tell you the day my fixation started - and probably yours, too: September 11, 2001. That tragedy not only changed the lives of the country by the terrible loss of humanity on that day, but the beginning of our loss of control over our lives. And the media came to our rescue - to make sense of it all. They dropped commercials and gave us the news. Hard news. And, sad news. And they've been making money from those tragic days ever since. Whereas the Breaking News bar at the bottom of our screens used to be only for emergencies, on cable, now it rolls every morning, noon and night, telling us, not breaking news, but breakfast news to feed our consciences that there's still a tragedy awaiting to happen. So we better stay tuned, and prepared for the worst.

My question to you is -- with all of the segments, talk shows, panelists, etc., have we learned anything from them? Only what we're told, or as the New York Time boasts, "News that's Fit to Print." The word "fit" has a double entendre, however. What is fit to print is selectively chosen not in the public's interest, but for "the military-industrial-corporate-Congressional complex "that Republican President Eisenhower, a military man, warned us about.



["someone" excised the word congressional from his speech, allegedly].

Continuing -- what is fit to print is in the interests of corporate America's control over the hearts, minds, and bodies of America (which is actually owned by Europe - that's another article about how England and Japan won the Wars, after all] And just what do they really want from us? A feeling of national unity? Of harmony and pride that a nation of different colors and creeds can be one, united for the common good?

Let's cut to the chase, because you knew I was running here [DISCLAIMER: these are hypothetical scenarios unintended to draw any negative attention to any particular commercial brand or product]:

Channel 1: "Coffee is bad for you. Back after this commercial. [Maxwell House].
Channel 2: "No, Coffee is good for you. Find out why, after this commercial. break" [MaxWell House - same commercial simultaneously playing on two different stations]
Channel 3: "Mites are eating you alive while you sleep. We'll be back in a second."[new, Off-mite spray]
Channel 4: "There's a rapist out on the loose, 350 miles from where you live -- we'll have actual footage of the police driving in their cars looking for them. But you have to stay right here to find out what happens. Back in a sec (6 minutes). But be afraid. Be very afraid."[Brinks Safety].
Channel 5: "There's a black MALE rapist out on the loose, twenty-eight hundred miles from where you live (no details of the color - just a Black, or African-American man). Back in two minutes (but lock your doors during the interim. Be afraid. Be very afraid. [On Star].
Channel 6: Cops chased a car: here's the ten minute footage and who knows? We might see someone die on television in a shoot out! Back in a minute (although Shepard Smith will tell you the number of seconds remaining - so you can clock the seconds to see if he's right).[Get your law enforcement degree in three weeks].

Back to

Channel 1: The Iraqi war is showing improvement as the US mounts its Operation Thunderclap (or something of a Herculean, let's think Thor (he's blond), or Wagnerian Gotterdamerung theme suggesting civilization will be destroyed).[The ARMY commercial follows]
Channel 2: The economy is going to tank. [Snickers commercial].
Channel 3: The Dow hit a record, recovering its losses of yesterday. Stay tuned (our [gambling expert] will be with us in a couple of minutes to explain the market -- after another (5 minutes) commercial break. Advertisement for the state lottery next..... keep it here." [E-trade (on the verge of collapse, or so they say]

Channel 4: Seven soldiers were ambushed the next day, after all was peace and quiet, bringing our toll to a (specific, exacting number). [We're in the business of detailing the news, but we can't tell you the names of the fallen, who gave up their lives for you and me to sit on our couch eating popcorn, watching the news not tell us the real news. All we can tell you is that seven anonymous soldiers died. But before we cut to commercial, let's hear from Chuck... Chuck any update on the Britney story? (to camera). We're putting the microphone on our guest, who is coming up after the break - we... are going to chat with Britney's second grade friend who knew her all of one semester before her family moved away. Let's learn from her about our favorite troubled pop star.

"I'm sorry?" Okay (listening to the earphone puppet stringer that turns the announcer into a marionette that speaks - hey, how did they do that?) "Okay, we'll be back in (4 commercials) ten minutes. Stay on our channel where we give you the top news every hour on the hour, on our no-spin, you heard if first news station - CNNFOXSNB - [Acronym? Confusion Broadcasting].

Back to Channel 5: "We're back from commercial speaking with Joe Smith. Mr. Smith -- it was you who saw the child crossing the street, and picked him up and dove to the other side of the pavement, when the car was a block away -- and no one was scratched? Right?" (Microphone in Joe Smith's face): "Yes." Newsman: "Well that's great news. You're a hero to us and all of America. Thanks for being on our show. We'll be back after a brief break (of 5 minutes)."

There's a silver lining in here somewhere. Here's a remedy: There's a prescription that each American should be given to improve his or her health. We need to diet. From television. Like an enema (yuck) or a one-time purge (no offense to any real purgers out there)we need to get the news out of our system. And we'll be healthier as a result. Watching announcer/actors on television is not living a fulfilling life (say the preceding four words -- fast). And if everything we learn from the Great Pontificators in a Box is actually scripted, then it might be better to be illegible and deaf to them -- so we can live and learn about our own lives -- the old fashioned way - by doing.

But you all know this. It's old news. So... I'm off to the gym... as soon as I finish watching the news.

gin

Sphere: Related Content

CNN's Reliable Sources Lightly Tickles its Usual Suspects - the Oprah Apology Critique

Today my solipsistic vitriol is politely leveled at CNN's Reliable Sources. Howard Kurtz's show is a Sunday news hour that attempts to admonish its news-gathering fraternity (if females are actors, instead of actresses, then female journalists are members of the fraternity, not the sorority) for weak journalism. Kurtz's "news review-lite" exacts temperate revenge upon its selected errant peers by grazing the "bad guys" (as the newscasters refer to the miscreants of the weak) with feathers under the armpits with the purpose of inciting guilty giggles about what they got wrong during the previous week.

Now, were I to be the Punisher, I would probably do something more dastardly, like force Kurtz to brandish a whip and flagellate himself and his peers and make them eat their printed copy to keep from screaming at the blows (but that sounds a bit kinky, so I'll dismiss that thought). Inasmuch as I am not a guest (nor would I ever be), nor am I a journalist (I think, therefore I am not a journalist), I have to settle for CNN's attempt at scolding his fellow men and women. Good concept, but I don't think they understand the gravity of the self-analysis they should really, truly, undertake. I mean, they can make really big mistakes that have dastardly consequences - like not questioning the motives for going to War in Iraq, and speaking out about the true idiocy of the idea. They can ruin lives of the deluded and defamed, thereby assisting in the demise of majority uneducated human beings who want a tad too much publicity for their mediocre talent (but a "shout out" to them for achieving their dream). Journalists can destroy nations, and, especially when they don't make sufficient inquiry -- they can be unwitting assistants to murder by their acquiescence by deciding not to question deeply enough, instead, running with the Bulls and getting swept by the multitudes.

But, of course, like Dan Abrams' MSNBC show "Beat the Press," Reliable Sources takes the soft approach. You know, it's like they give themselves a half-dozen roses instead of a full dozen to reprimand each other. Obviously, the news sources on Reliable Sources can still feel good about themselves, because their shows suggest that the media can truly be objective about something about which they can rarely be objective: themselves. I mean, really, they interview important people, they go to parties with them, and even develop friendships which, would obviously skew their judgment.

Like the police who conduct internal investigations, or the Catholic Church's handling of the scandals in their clerical ranks -- really, what kind of punishment would you give yourself for doing something wrong? One less piece of chocolate? Right.

So this week, among the discussion about the television writers and theater union strikes, afterwards, Kurtz set his sights on Oprah Winfrey and her apology to the world for not doing thorough background checks for her highly publicized charitable school in Africa. Apparently, a woman selected by Oprah to run the school abused her authority and molested some of the kids. I haven't really followed the story, honestly. But, the question asked was something along the lines of how did she do in acquitting herself of the negative publicity.

The guests were Michael Medvev, a rep from one of the Hollywood movie rags, and a a twenty-something-looking guest named Jill Pozner. It is to commend her on her role in elevating the discussion about Oprah's apology that I write today. She gets the Snap Back reward by suggesting that the question raised by Kurtz was, in effect, stupid, and missed the real story.

Ms. Pozner didn't use those words, but she chided Mr. Kurtz that the focus should have been on the very issue which caused Oprah's tears: child abuse. Well done, Ms. Pozner. Fascinated by the identity of this woman who could so feistily chide an elder CNN reporter, I looked up the background of this intrepid fighter for better journalism. Ms. Posner has been a real advocate for fair media and was a part of a same-named national organization, FAIR until she started her own gig, WIMN (took me ten minutes to figure out the double-entendre of the acronym). So let's roll the transcript, peppered by my own inner thoughts about the seriousness of a news show that reduces responses to 20 seconds or less:

KURTZ: All right. I need 20 seconds from each of you. [SEE ME SCREAMING AT THE TV:" AS IF ONE CAN DO ANYTHING IN TWENTY SECONDS, AND TEN MORE STILL, IT WOULD BE A FLOP"]

Michael Medved, how is Oprah Winfrey handling this matter? [SEE ME, COUNTING THE SECONDS - "ONE, TWO... HMMM. SOUNDS LIKE A THUMBS UP, THUMBS DOWN RESPONSE IS IN ORDER - HURRY UP, MICHAEL BEFORE HE FORGETS WHAT HE ASKED YOU"]

MEDVED: She's handling it well. I mean, look, it ought to be acknowledged that this is one star who really has consistently tried to use some of her wealth and power to benefit very unfortunate people. The fact that some of that trust and some of that donation was abused I don't think it's right to blame on her.

KURTZ: Jennifer Pozner?

POZNER [MY ITALICS AND CAPS FOR EMPHASIS: WELL, MEDIA COVERAGE -- OUR SHOW AND OTHERS -- SHOULD BE FOCUSING ON THE TRAUMA THAT THESE GIRLS FACED AND THE SYSTEMS THAT WEREN'T IN PLACE TO KEEP THEM SAFE AND THE PREVALENCE OF SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE EDUCATION SYSTEM IN SOUTH AFRICA, NOT ON HOW PAINFUL THIS WAS FOR OPRAH. I'M SURE IT WAS PAINFUL FOR HER. I'M SURE SHE'S VERY SINCERE. BUT SHE SHOULD HAVE DONE THE DUE DILIGENCE TO PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING, AND WE SHOULDN'T BE TALKING ABOUT IT AS A CELEBRITY STORY, WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT THE ACTUAL ISSUES OF SEXUAL ASSAULT. [ME: "you go girl," But I digress, so let's continue].

[LET'S SEE - NO RESPONSE EXCEPT TO STICK TO HIS SCRIPT][KURTZ: "Ray Richmond, I give her credit though for not hiding behind spokesmen or putting out official statements. She went to the microphone and she took some responsibility."

RAY RICHMOND [THINKING: Uh-oh.. we have a chick who thinks.. I mustn't let her make me look bad. I'll play it both ways:

RICHMOND: Yes, I give Oprah credit for that, but I agree with Jennifer, that the focus should not be on, ooh, Oprah the celebrity, what's happening. It should more be on the social issue behind this, which would have never seen the light of day if it hadn't been Oprah.

[RICHMOND - BUT LET ME GET MY DIG IN NONETHELESS...]

And I would have been less suspicion just of, you know, her own P.R. ends if she didn't have the same reaction to this that she had to Hermes closing their doors on her.

Note the slide back into "celebridumb*" coverage - All three pundits, besides Ms. Pozner, wanted to engage in a media fest centered on chipping away at the armor of a powerful woman, yet again by referring to a cultural misunderstanding in France with regard to a Hermes shop, and her philanthropic efforts, however, misguided they may be.

KURTZ: All right.

Good job, Ms. Pozner.

* And, by the way, you read the word first here: "celebridumb" - an aka for "The Media" who, as grown men and women, take off their journalism hats and, instead, bask in navel-gazing discussions about inane pop culture subjects or "targets," to a frightening degree.

Sphere: Related Content