First rule of Journalism-- don't have a bias!

Wow... and they say they're fair and balanced.



Fox News apparently decided that the world was showering Kurt Vonnegut's memory with too much admiration and respect-- you know with all the ticker tape parades, national day of mourning and panicked children rocking back and forth in corners of rooms the world over. Clearly someone needed to step in and take Kurt down a peg. (A whole peg!)

Published the day after Kurt's death, the piece is anything but journalism.

One of the first rules of journalism is to keep your bias out of the story. The idea, the fundamental idea of journalism, let me qualify that, modern journalism is to let the reader/viewer/consumer make up their own mind. It is our job to gather the news and report it, not pass judgment on it.

There is an exception. The editorial and opinion segments, and if you're confused by what is Op-Ed and what is News:

Andy Rooney at the end of 60min - Op-Ed
A word from the station director on the local news - Op-Ed
The preacher that stands on a box in front of the school water fountain - Op-Ed

Jim Lehrer's News Hour - News
BBC Radio - News
New York Times front page - News

Since when do we behave like this?

What has happened is that as the news has become a corporate investment, it's become less and less a news product and more and more a consumer product. Fox News is a product that gives a certain audience the news of the day with a slant that agrees with their pre-conceived notions and beliefs.

The news channel understands that they can make more money (a built in audience means reliable ratings and advertising rates that can be counted on for quarterly growth) by taking advantage of human nature. We like it when others agree with us, it makes I feel good, empowered and smart. Fox panders to this and gives us the news from a view that matches our views. Naturally those that watch it feel that Fox is telling them the truth and others are "liberal" outlets that lie.

They aren't doing anything wrong really, it's cable TV and the public has no say over it, but I do take issue in what they have done to journalism. If Fox News called itself a news magazine like Dateline, Inside Edition or Access Hollywood then I would have no problem with them. That transparent title and image would make it obvious what they are selling, but as it is now, they're ruining journalism in the public conscious and painting pictures of liberal and conservative journalism.

Journalism is not and should not have a political affiliation. The history of journalism tells us that early newspapers were fronts for political campaigns, we've since then evolved into taking on the watch dog role and broke stories on local and national news of importance.

Stories that society has benefited from knowing. Stories like Watergate, the Iran-Contra affair, Walter Reed hospital and the Vietnam War coverage.

Do we really want to go back to political mud slinging and erode the trust we've built?

This is pretty disgusting behavior coming from anyone. When Ronald Reagan, widely regarded as the Republican poster child and constantly sub noted by the right as an ideal to aspire to (who if Mel Brooks was still makes movies I'm convinced would use his picture as a prop in every preppy high schoolers room as 80s movies used posters of Farah Fawcett... okay I'm tangential again!) passed away I didn't see CNN or MSNBC or any of the big four running smear pieces. What is this?

This is propaganda, and I am pretty sure even the talking heads at Fox News don't want to be thought of or seen as shilling propaganda.

Kurt isn't on the scale of Regan, but my point is, Fox is trying to make this a political piece. And in watching the piece it almost seems like Fox is celebrating this man's death. What gives? Regardless of my political slant, I would be appalled at this behavior, and if I was part of the audience Fox targets (I don't have cable) I would be insulted if they assume I would rejoice in a man's death. What's next, book burnings? (OK, cheap shot.)

And just how many times did they use the word "liberal" in that piece? And is "mumbo jumbo" a technical term? And the cliff notes version is "I was born"... as if that is all that matters? I don't want to jump to conclusions, but could Kurt's anti-war leanings be among the sources of their irk?

It seemes like Fox is celebrating the death of this liberal science-fiction novelist. Hey that's alright Rupert I rather have someone that has something to say and comes up with new ideas than someone who just complains and bitches and moans about everything and never has anything constructive to say.

BONUS/DELETED SCENE/UNRATED/EASTER EGG CUT

Unpublished SHAdays:
*Newspapers will allege that you did something, TV News will want to to know what you had for breakfast, who you slept with last night and when your last rectal exam was. ... Oh, and they want to know why you did it

*Sometimes when I want less melodrama and spectacle in my life, I turn off the TV News and turn on the soaps. (zing!)

...and...
President Clinton gets into it

I'm glad Mr, Stewart agrees... whew!

When I posted my reflections on Imus I was afraid that some might miss the point I was trying to make, but thanks to a video a friend sent my way, I'm glad to see my thinking wasn't quite as radical as I first believed.

Imus Firing May Create a Slippery Slope

Today Don Imus, who unless you've been under a rock, you know has been at the center of a media storm involving the Scarlet Knights of Rutgers basketball team and some comments he made to his producer at "Imus in the Morning," was fired.

Imus made the statements before Easter weekend and there was a small groundswell, but it wasn't until he appeared on Al Sharpton's radio program that a louder voice was heard. By the end of the show, Imus and his words were everywhere and everyone was talking.

At first it seemed CBS was content with a suspension and the issue would blow over, but the protest grew more vocal and when advertisers started to pull their support (the same thing that triggered ABC to drop Bill Maher's late night show after the events of 9-11) Imus was also dropped by CBS.

Isn't it interesting that as vocal as protesters and critics were, it all came down to advertisers and the money. It's the American way.

Al Sharpton declared a small victory after the CBS verdict to fire Imus came down, calling it an example of hatred that should not and will not be tolerated. News camera were on hand for the response (and while you're at it, check it out, The Spartan Daily now has videos!)

The comments as we've all heard were derogatory and sexist in nature and he was rightfully taken to task for it and with the comments having been played again and again pretty much everyone has heard them and responded in some fashion.

Which brings up another interesting questions, why is it acceptable to repeat the statements on every cable channel and airwave?

How is it that we bleep out the N-word, but no one has batted an eye at this when everyone is claiming that it is just as unacceptable? You'll notice I haven't repeated them here.

And while I'm at it, why did every news front that covered the Scarlet Knights of Rutgers press conference use this picture:


The team has players that are not African-American, and the conference had these other players in attendance, yet their faces are not the ones on the cover of our nations newspapers. Instead we are given an image of what we want to see, because in a way, we want to see racism because that makes for a sexier story.

We are practicing visual racism as a culture, without even saying it we have all agreed that these insults are only for the black athletes, and if you really think about the words, are they really directed at any race? When rappers call women "hoes" are they directing them at any race? If they are, there there are some women in the wrong video.

And I believe nappy hair is not connected to race, I have nappy hair. So then why did the protesters, Rainbow Push (an organization I have volunteered and contributed to) in particular and the media snap onto the idea and why did society accept that this term was only specific to the Black players?

It would seem to me that not only was he wrong for saying what he said, but their is something wrong with us if automatically we assume that he only directed his comments to the African-American players.

I agree that Imus should have been punished, but I'm afraid that by firing him we are heading down a slippery slope. Most people are glad that a hate spewing radio personality will be off the air (but really, is what he said any different than what Howard Stern says?) but this opens a door that allows anyone that doesn't agree with what someone says to harm their livelihood.

For example, let's say tomorrow Regis Philbin comes out in support of gay marriage and decides to marry 50 couples on his show and starts advocating for same-sex nuptials. Before you know it, the opposition is picketing and demanding that Philbin be fired for his actions because they feel he is corrupting America.

Sure at first, ABC will refuse to act and defend his actions, but then the boycott continues and the religious right mobilizes and the state of New York dissolves all the marriages and the voices grow louder and pretty soon advertisers get antsy and start dropping support. The show can't go on without advertisers and ABC decides to let Regis go.

Is that fair? And if you're saying it'll never happen, oh it will happen, afterall they re-elected Bush (zing!).

This was unacceptable behavior and but perhaps we may have gone to far?

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

--Voltaire

Let's not be fooled, this firing was a response to the advertisers and not the protester on CBS' part. The advertisers would not have pulled out if not for the bad publicity spurred by protests, but if you boil it down, it's about the ad rates.

It's an ugly mess all around... sometimes serious situations call for some light hearted ribbing. Send in the clowns!