Chuck Colson dies and the free press is ailing…

Well first this week it was Dick Clark of American Bandstand fame, and now Chuck Colson, of Watergate fame is dead. Two totally different stories of course.

But just as Dick Clark was a seminal part of my growing up, so was Colson. Well not really Colson himself, but the Watergate scandal he was involved in. Actually I was grown up when it occurred. But I was just out of the Army and beginning my so-called career in journalism. Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein broke the story about Watergate that eventually brought down the presidency of Richard Nixon.

That was back in the days when there was something called journalism, not just “media”, and when students still majored in “journalism“, not “communication”  or whatever name they have given it now (there used to be something called “publicity”, which reporters got into to make more money, kind of like prostitution).

Their efforts were made famous in the book and movie “All the President’s Men”. Of course reporters from the New York Times and other outfits did a lot (even more, perhaps) to tell the whole sordid story of Watergate too. It was about a presidency and re-election campaign gone way out of control, with Nixon using the power of his office and the government to stifle or intimidate political opponents or anyone who he or his staff thought might threaten his power.

I did not decide on journalism because of Woodward and Bernstein, though. Actually I thought it might be easier than work at the wood products mill and more suited to my talents or abilities. But that summer of the Watergate hearings, the summer before I entered into the actual workaday field of journalism, I was working in sugar beet and bean fields moving irrigation pipe — I had left the mill job. But every chance I got I listened with rapt attention the live broadcasts of the Watergate hearings. And I knew that something had gone terribly wrong with our democracy but the power of the press had been used in a good way and had set in motion the wheels of government oversight to set things right. And after I had become a newspaper reporter, I recall watching what I considered one of the most historic things I had ever seen — the President of the United States announcing his resignation of nationwide TV. I actually took a picture of the TV tube (I think at a 30th of a second shutter speed), just for my own remembrance (don’t know if I still have it).

Colson did prison time and then found God — that’s the nice thing about sinning, you can always later find God, or at least claim you did — I’m not sure how falsely claiming it will work at the pearly gates, though. Colson may have really been repentant or he may have just been sorry he got caught. I don’t know. Never paid much attention to him.

Nixon was able to regain some of his stature and reputation after time, not all of it. Ironically, I think he was an extremely able politician and leader, but he had a major character flaw (to say the least). And if he had just owned up to Watergate in the beginning I feel certain he would have gotten away with it, but covering up bad activity is sometimes as bad or worse than the actual bad activity and increases exposure to jail time — just ask Martha Stewart.

But anyway, when I watched the movie, “All the Presidents’ Men”, there they were, Woodward and Bernstein (well of course Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman playing them) hunting and pecking away at their manual typewriters. I never hunted and pecked. I at least used a my modified touch typing method, based on that taught in school, but I used manual typewriters for years. I thought it great that at the little paper where I worked at the time we were no further behind in that score than the Washington Post (my time frame is a little messed up in that the actual Watergate scandal pre-dated my entry into journalism a little bit, I think, but I saw the movie after going to work at a paper).

I often note (to anyone who might care) that newspaper newsrooms moved from manual typewriters to computers, while other offices had already been at least using electric typewriters for years or decades. Once when I was covering the local county board of supervisors meeting during a yearly budget session, the sheriff requested an electric typewriter for jail bookings. When asked by one of the supervisors why they could not just keep using the manual one since it would only be used by deputies not clerical personnel, the sheriff said he did not want to make his deputies labor at those manual typewriters — and you can just picture a deputy or jailer booking someone, hunting and pecking away, like on the old Barney Miller TV Show. I was nearly incredulous. I mean I knew I was headed back to my office to type out my story and many others on an old Royal manual typewriter. But hey, you know, they’re county workers, they get better pensions too.

And back to Chuck Colson and Watergate. Politics is dirty. Always has been. Always will be. And where there are elections (and even where there are not) there is politics — you just can’t take the politics out of politics. Colson and the others probably for the most part did little worse than had been done before and is still being done — except, I think in Watergate President Nixon and his henchmen did cross the line, using the power of government, such as through IRS harassment, and even the disruption of free elections, to thwart our democracy. They thought that because they felt they were supporting the right cause the ends justified the means. That thinking still often prevails today. Actually, it’s really scary. We even have people implying that we ought to do away (and I’m using a euphemism) with our current president (and you can’t get me to believe there isn’t some racism there). Colson is dead. Dirty politics will never die.

P.s.

Watergate made me feel good about the role of the free press in a free society. I was not too surprised to learn that in the small time newspaper owners were not so keen on investigative reporting, especially if it involved advertisers. But I have been saddened that with the advance of technology and competition in news reporting from the internet and the decline of newspaper advertising, the bean counters have taken over much of the larger segment of the free press. There is not as much money or enthusiasm to do real reporting — it’s more like who can be first with the tweet with the most banal comments. On the other hand, with the ability to instantly disseminate information worldwide and the pervasiveness of texting and You Tube and so on, it’s hard for anyone to get away with anything.

Public apathy and lack of real information as opposed to political propaganda is the reason for so much discontent…

What do the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street (and occupy other streets) have in common?

They are both mad as heck and they don’t think the government is handling things correctly and they don’t think things are right in this land.

But beyond that I don’t think either movement (if they can be called movements) have any clear idea as to what they want, except they want things to be fair.

In their own ways they both want a government more responsive to the general public, I think.

It seems that the Tea Party is a faction of the far right and that Occupy Wall Street is a faction of the far left, but I’m relatively sure that a lot of people who have participated in or sympathized with both factions would not consider themselves thus aligned — particularly Occupy Wall Street. Supposedly both groups include regular everyday Americans without a particular political agenda who are just mad as heck and don’t want to take it anymore.

There really is no central leadership in either movement (at least not highly identifiable), and the Occupy Wall Street crowd even seems to think that is the way things in their movement should go — just a kind of consensus thing.

(Of course the structure of Hitler’s hierarchy was one guy says: “I’m in charge” and everyone follows him until maybe a new guy says, “no I’m in charge”. That seems to be the way things work when either far right or left political cults or movements take charge, witness Nazi or fascist (far right) methods or communist  (far left) methods. Guns often have played a part in all of this — I know it sounds like I’ve gone off track. But I just favor peaceful, civilized representative democracy and one man, one vote to support that.)

It is my understanding that the Tea Party was actually started as a kind of phony front group for some big money interests who aimed to pull in ordinary people who were amenable to the right-wing pro big business political agenda. But maybe some of those people are taking the whole thing seriously and maybe the movement moved beyond all that.

Occupy Wall Street, I’m not at all sure about. It kind of resembles the anti-war movement of the 60s, which in its earliest stages was more of a hippie/college student thing, but finally drew in support from the mainstream. But organized labor is trying to get in on the act today (back in the 60s organized labor actually got into bed with corporate America to some extent). Maybe organized labor wants to co-opt occupy Wall Street. That would not be good. It is hard to know who would be the bigger threat, organized labor or corporate America.

I was surprised to hear a snaky, mocking report on Occupy Wall Street on CNN. It seems that the mainstream media has been slow to warm up to Occupy Wall Street, but has fallen all over itself for the Tea Party. But maybe the Tea Party has made more of an impact — got people elected to office and got the attention of the politicians – and is better organized. I have to be fair, though; there has been a lot of critical reporting on the Tea Party and yes some down right mocking too (but there is so much to mock sometimes).

The professional politicians don’t know how to act. They are stuck in the old school. You raise money for elections from various fat cats and corporate donors and other special interest groups and then you do their bidding.

While the Tea Party seems to align itself with the Republican Party, it would seem the Occupy Wall Street crowd would be aligned with some faction of the Democratic Party. It would be nice or interesting if they both disassociated from the two major parties.

The culprit in all of this discontent among the public (besides high unemployment), though, is the fact that money buys votes because money buys the message. The great mass of the public and the actual voters (a minority of the public) don’t spend a lot of time studying issues or critically analyzing them; they are either too busy making living (or looking for a job) and/or are apathetic. But the paid propaganda seeps through.

Who is more likely to get the ear of your local congressman? Joe Citizen or Mr. Big Time Lobbyist who represents tons of money to finance tons of propaganda for relection? I think you know the answer.

A better informed public would go a long ways toward changing things (it does not cost you to vote), but that is problematic.

Journalism has always been a business, but it was a strange one in which the bean counters were separated from the journalists, but the bean counters have taken over. Corporate America has all but taken over professional journalism so some of its work seems at times to be more like infomercials than traditional news reporting.

The internet (which makes it possible for me to do this blog) is quite a phenomenon. But it does not necessarily provide more, or more critical, information than was available before its arrival on the scene — in fact, in many ways it has polluted the streams of critical analysis of public issues (if this blog is part of that pollution, rest assured it is only a small part). But it probably does not have to be that way entirely and there is a lot of good information available once one sifts through it all. And it is great that the mainstream media does not have a monopoly on information and that it has to respond to things, such as the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street (I think it tried hard to ignore the latter, but has had to relent somewhat).

As far as professional journalism, my past association with it was primarily in the field of newspapers. And here is my quick down and dirty super abbreviated take on the history of the print media in the U.S. (beginning with the 13 colonies):

A.  One man’s opinion; the owner of the newspaper

A. 1   Pure propaganda

B.  The beginnings of modern newspaper reporting with dispatches from the front lines of the Civil War, complete with news stories in the inverted pyramid style with the most important elements first, lest the telegraph wire is cut off.

C. Sensational or so-called yellow journalism, such as the propaganda that led us into the Spanish-American War.

D.  A kind of golden age when people still depended primarily on newspapers for their information and in which many prosperous newspapers, large and small, did their best to present quality news reports with no bias (to the extent that is humanly possible) while also publishing vigorous arguments on public policy on their editorial pages. Hard to define when this golden age was, but it ended some time ago, even though the attempt is still there often — but the readership is down and the money interests have taken over and they are not interested in good reporting — they just want to sell something. And while one might think there is a market for good reporting, maybe there is but the overhead may be too high. Corporate America these days wants quick profits.

Meanwhile, the public is apathetic, the government unresponsive, and things economically have turned sour and the public wonders what happened.

But where has the public been all these years?

P.s.

But here is another problem: our form of representative democracy requires constant attention of the voters and for whatever reason Americans just are not that into politics, at least not politics all the time.

Another problem is that there is no intelligence requirement for voting. Yes I said that.

In some ways we would all be better off if an intelligent, elite but benevolent group ran things, but how could that be had or guaranteed?

So we are left with what we have. But we have to pay attention and think and then vote.

Another problem is you can only vote for what is presented and there is often not much choice. To get more choices takes more involvement and may just take too much time out of life for most people. And if you get too many choices you lack any clear consensus and you can’t go several ways at once on most issues.

But if people would just pay attention and think critically rather than reacting to obvious bias and propaganda it would help.

Drowning story deep sixed under pressure of advertiser and newspaper manager’s neighbor…

BLOGGER’S NOTE:

A couple of days or so now since posting the following I have come to realize the post probably deals more with small-town journalism than what its original headline (about Mormons running for president) suggested. With that in mind I have re-posted and revised it, hoping that those interested in how things work in journalism, or at least small-town journalism, might read it. It’s what happens when the non-news people take over and only not offending anyone, especially an advertiser, is the main concern, besides being profitable.

———————————

One of my first big bosses at a newspaper, his title being “general manager”, was a Mormon (he’s a dead one now — may he be at peace in Mormon heaven). He was not a newsman in the least, but on most (not all) of the newspapers I worked on the non-news people ran the show and pretended to admire we news types, at least to our face, and probably wondered to themselves how we could be so foolish as to work for so little money at something so trivial as reporting news rather than selling ad space. He was vain as vain could be. But who could blame him? He was a tall silver-haired (or maybe just gray at the temples then; I forget) middle-aged man and quite handsome to a woman’s eye I am sure. As he strode through the office women would all but gasp and look admiringly upon their leader. He was always polite and good natured and cordial in public, with a friendly word for everyone. But sometimes the whispers would go around that in high-level staff meetings, behind the closed door of his office, he became furious. But that fury was respected because he was the tall, handsome leader. If a lower-level staffer were to become angry it would be called a tempter tantrum.

I have mentioned this once in another context too. But Mr. Big personally killed a story about the drowning of a boy and the failure of the ambulance driver/deputy coroner to take him directly to the hospital where he might have been resuscitated in time and saved (might have). The boy was in fact brought back to life by a hospital intern, but died days later. The ambulance driver, who, as I noted, was also the deputy coroner, had stopped to interview witnesses and make his report before taking the boy to a hospital. That ambulance driver was also a real-estate salesman and advertised heavily in our newspaper. He also threatened to sue if anything mentioning him was written (I know; I took the original call).

Mr. Big asked me what he had said. I told him. Mr. Big assured me that no one was going to tell the newspaper what it could publish and what not, keeping in mind to stay away from actual libel. (My personal note here: simple truth is usually a good defense against libel, but one might want to consult a lawyer in that field on that one).

But Mr. Big, I found out years later, lived next door to a big wig in the Sheriff’s Department, which was also implicated in possible (possible) negligence. That big wig unwittingly told me that he had prevailed upon Mr. Big to kill that story. Now this individual who told me that was a self-promoting blow hard of sorts, but knowing what I know, I think Mr. Big wilted under pressure. (That was my story he killed.)

To be fair, it could be that there was little to no actual negligence involved in that incident if all the facts were gone through — I mean it was conjectured the poor boy was probably already beyond saving, except to possibly be brought back to life with severe brain damage.

(To my memory we did print at least one brief story saying that the boy had drowned, but that was it  — no details).

But in a small town, Mr. Big killed all chances of the truth getting out, at least for wide dissemination and in a credible manner (see below).

Since I am revising this post I will add here: I think the story may have first broke in a kind of quirky local newspaper to the south of us run by an eccentric older lady who had inherited it from her father. She pretty much just printed anything she felt like. The paper was known for printing divorce filings as soon as they were made. Sometimes husbands or wives got their first word of a divorce not from their spouse but from the newspaper. Because the family of the drowned boy had some connections in her community her paper jumped all over that story and immediately printed everything they could gather on it, such as the gossip that I eventually heard too that the ambulance driver/coroner/real estate salesman had actually stopped on his way to the hospital not only to gather information from witnesses or possible witnesses but to discuss real estate (no real proof of this). My editor derided this kind of reporting but also realized I am sure that we were running behind on the story. He set me to work telling me basically to do a kind of at least mini investigation (no overtime authorized, as I recall). I made several phone calls and I did some personal interviews. As I recall (this was more than 30 years ago), I went out to the site and talked to at least one resident in a nearby house. I filed a story based on the interviews of local citizens, sheriff department officials, oh, and yes, the parents (who were in the process of filing a civil suit for wrongful death and/or negligence). I don’t recall that the story came down on anyone (even the parents could have had some blame; the poor child had wandered away from them — as a parent I know how that could be/happen). It just contained the facts as best they were known at the time. I was subsequently told by my editor that he had to get an okay from Mr. Big before we could run this. To my knowledge this was the first time this had ever happened. But I do understand that Mr. Big had to be concerned about being sued for libel by the ambulance driver/coroner/real estate guy. Oh, and I should have mentioned, the ambulance driver/so on and so on, refused interviews.

But to successfully sue a publication for libel the bar is fairly high, as I understand it. There must be proof of intent and malice (my interpretation, not a strictly legal one). Certainly there was none here, even though I have to admit that getting that threatening phone call from the ambulance driver/coroner, so on and so on, kind of soured me on him — but I can rise above those things.

We waited for days and maybe a month or more for an okay from Mr. Big. Meanwhile, the quirky paper to the south kept publishing stories (to include gossip — but often gossip can be fairly accurate I have found). The story finally got cold. I subsequently left the newspaper. I was told later that the paper never ran any story but at some point ran an editorial claiming that it had done an exhaustive investigation on the drowning incident and had found nothing untoward (I can’t even say I did an “exhaustive” investigation, and to my knowledge no one else did).

Local newspapers often do not have the resources for long or extensive investigations. But that is not always called for. A simple reporting of a story could have sufficed in this incident, but that was prevented.

Remember or learn what happened a hundred years ago at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory before you turn your back on labor…

A lot of times people, including me, will describe public broadcasting as being a little left leaning and therefore slanted a little toward the point of view of, say, labor in labor versus management.

Well sometimes when you tell a story, even if you try to balance it out, the facts just lean that way by themselves — but the story is still essentially balanced.

I mention this in relation to the ongoing push by some on the right to curb public funding for public broadcasting and more importantly because a hundred years ago this March 25 there was a fire at the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory in New York City in which 146 workers, primarily woman and young girls, toiling in abysmal working conditions, perished in a fire in a building in which doors were locked, cutting off an escape route.

PBS provides a good documentary on the story (see link at bottom of blog post).

There had been labor unrest in the garment industry and at that factory. There had been a walkout, but the Triangle owners held out.

The union gained public sympathy and support after the fire. The owners escaped criminal convictions on manslaughter charges and faded off into the background with their insurance money. The workers’ families got little to nothing.

I watched the PBS documentary video on the incident just before posting this. Actually I believe I have seen it previously and certainly I have known of the famous incident, but watching the video refreshed my memory and this time I picked up on what you might say is the other side of the story.

While most of the workers were poor recent immigrants to America, so were the owners when they started the business. They sacrificed so they could better their lot in life and in so doing provided jobs for hundreds more. The owners resented efforts by workers and third parties, and even socialists, to interfere with their business and tell them how to run their factory. They were also contending with being undercut in their production costs from competition — right here in America, in New York City. So there is your balance. I got that from the PBS video. Also, I don’t think anyone is for sure what caused the fire. It was supposedly set by a discarded match — there was supposed to be no smoking in the workplace, but some workers snuck smokes in — got that from the video too. It was suggested the doors were locked in part to keep people from smuggling merchandise or supplies out (not really a good reason to block safety exits).

The women were not even allowed restroom breaks. I’m not sure how you balance or explain that one.

Today in the U.S. we have strict safety regulations and things like the Occupational Safety and Hazard Administration (much maligned by the right wing, and perhaps on occasion a little unreasonably bureaucratic). But we have moved away from the industrial base and in so doing away from unionization, except in public employment where unions still rule and up until now have seemed quite strong. And with the bleak job market and the heightened competition for the few jobs that remain, the labor movement has been weakened and the sympathy for those who labor has seemingly waned. Besides a lot of people, even me included, hate to think of themselves being in an adversarial relationship with their employers.

In addition, I think, a lot of people, including myself, do not necessarily think that pay ought to be an issue decided by a group of workers or a third party calling itself the union, but rather essentially a deal between the employer and employee. We may think we ought to get paid more on the basis or our own merits rather than a group. And, as pointed out in the video I referred to, even if you have sympathy for the plight of workers, you may see robust capitalism, only lightly restricted, as the best means of innovation in and invigoration of the economy.

But let us learn and/or never forget from the past.

It is worth your while to watch a video or read about the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire, whether it is for the first time or to refresh your memory.

While I personally think that in at least some cases unions, especially in, but not only in, the public sector are responsible for what I would call economic abuse or outright greed, I also know full well that forces representing business interests use our present economic ills and the fears of the working public scared that they will lose their jobs or never get their old ones back as a device to turn back the clock to a time we never want to see again.

Watch the video: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/triangle/player/

P.s.

As an added bonus, you find out what a shirtwaist is.

Why do we have to almost depend upon Al Jazeera for the news?

I really don’t know what to make of it, but I’m getting more of a feel for what is going on in the Middle East and even elsewhere from watching Al Jazeera (or is it Aljazeera — one word?), which until recently was thought of as an Islamist propaganda tool, than I am from many of the usual American sources.

I’m sure those who run this Arab news entity have their own point of view, but they have become quite sophisticated and worldly about it and it sounds awful informative to me. I find the Al Jazeera English live stream available on the internet quite intriguing.

I hope I’m not being duped, but they seem to be presenting some real news and analysis here with a lot wider view and certainly a different perspective than seems to be available elsewhere. And while the presenters sound well educated and quite articulate, you get the impression they are trying to play up the news and not themselves, as is the case on American networks.

I notice that our own Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, has been impressed with the work of Al Jazeera too: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/03/hillary-clinton-calls-al-_n_830890.html

(I know if Rush Limburger Cheese or his ilk read this they’d say I (as well as Hillary) was a dupe of the Islamists, but really what useful input have they, Limburger et al., ever had on intelligent discussion of national and world events? All they do is demagogue the airwaves for ratings and profit and only pretend to be patriots — hiding the fact that they were to a man cowards when they were draft age.)

If you want a comprehensive world view of the news you won’t get much from American media. The British Broadcasting Company (BBC) does an excellent job, and now Al Jazeera seems to be vying for the top spot as well.

I realize that Al Jazeera may be run by those who have figured out the best way to get people to go your way is to be the provider of the news — but all I’m saying is that whatever their motive, they seem to be providing a lot that has been missing up until now and do not seem to simply be a propaganda machine (even if some is neatly inserted into their reports).

I have not really been watching and reading Al Jazeera enough to get a complete take on it all, but so far, I find it fascinating.

One compelling aspect of it all is that the presenters and correspondents are so cosmopolitan. You see people with various shades of skin color, and on the English live stream, you hear them talking in better English than most of us use, and more sophisticated — but at the same time understandable — than U.S. broadcasters often seem.

(They kind of remind be of East Indian Doctors — maddeningly smart and well spoken.)

I suppose part of the problem is that U.S. news outlets have to make money so they have gone the way of show business, while Al Jazeera has the backing of a rich Arab (or Arabs).

The BBC is a state-run media that seems to take a world view (and probably longs for the days when the sun never set on the British Empire).

If you haven’t caught it, you ought to give Al Jazeera a look see. The more sources the better — you always have to sift out the propaganda, no matter where it’s from.

I notice on Google there seems to be two choices, Al Jazeera English and Al Jazeera English live stream. I usually click onto the live stream to get running video update on the news: http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/

ADD1:

Public broadcasting (PBS and NPR) in the U.S. also offers an alternative and can be quite informative, if a little anemic and left leaning at times.

About the rape of Lara Logan, the Islamic/Western culture divide, and good reporting…

By now you’ve no doubt heard or read the news that Lara Logan, CBS’s chief foreign correspondent, was raped while covering the story about jubilant crowds celebrating the ouster of Mubarak in Egypt. In these last hours since I heard about it, I’ve already heard some right-wing men call into a radio show complaining she’s getting too much attention. I heard a woman host claim that people just have to realize that the Islamic world operates by different rules and further more their morality is not compatible with that of the West.

Actually this was not a political or geopolitical phenomenon as far as I can see.

But before I comment any more on all of that, I just want to say that I do not know much about Ms. Logan, except that I certainly have seen many of her reports and realize that unlike a lot of pretty girl (and she is pretty) so-called news types you see on the tube she is a real reporter, quite articulate, and has a good voice for broadcast, I think  (and don’t forget the pretty boy types, blow dryers at the ready).

But being a reporter can be dangerous and being a foreign correspondent is especially dangerous if you are doing your job and getting out into the field instead of holing up in a hotel room or sitting by the pool and filing your stories from there.

I also know that she complained about the poor coverage the American news media did in Iraq and I think she also complained she had a hard time getting air time on her own network. The networks never really thought the war was that great of a story once it got under way. They did quite a job on the build up to it. They had been cowed by popular sentiment that seemed to blame them for losing Vietnam all those years ago and vowed to show just how eager they were for the country to go to war, by gosh by jingo.

Ms. Logan pressed on, nonetheless, and did a lot of reporting out there with the troops with the bullets flying (she was — is — a bit of a showboat and does not mind letting her assets, so to speak, show).

But what happened to her is that she was doing dangerous work and some thugs got to her. This could actually happen most anywhere, and I doubt that in this case it had much to do with the fact that she was in the part of the world where Islam is the major religion.

It does seem to be the case, though, that women are treated as second-class citizens under Islam, in most cases, and the reports are that in Egypt women are routinely subjected to sexual harassment just walking down the streets (I don’t know; I’ve just heard this).

The strange thing to me, though, is that fundamentalist Christians also believe women are second class, although I am sure they would deny this, except they cannot deny that they insist that women must be subservient to men. And both the fundamentalist Christians and Islam call for women to dress modestly (in the case of Islam, cover themselves almost completely) lest they be too tempting to men (who just cannot help themselves).

I do think, though, that there is some truth to the fact that the Islamic world is not compatible with the Western world because we have developed different social customs and a different culture. Europeans, most notably in France, are starting to push back against Islam, which has made such inroads there because of foreign workers, once welcomed in Europe due to a shortage of labor after World War II.

But back to Ms. Logan:

She suffered an attack from some thugs. That comes with the territory and she is a brave reporter.

Now if one wanted to be catty about all of this, there was a gossip story some time back about Ms. Logan having an affair with a married man in the war zone and getting mixed up in a messy divorce battle ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/25/lara-logan-sex-scandal-cb_n_109271.html ) .

But while I could not help but recall that, I don’t think it has anything to do with the misfortune she suffered or her skill at and devotion to news reporting.

———————

ADD 1:

As I wrote at the top of this post, I did not know much about Ms. Logan, other than seeing her on television. I always wondered what the accent was. She is from South Africa. I found that out on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lara_Logan

Old Spice and no makeup top American news???

If a lot of we Americans were caught by surprise by the uprising in Egypt and other parts of the Arab world here may be one of the contributing factors or at least a clue:

I just went to make a quick check on my computer as to what the major news of the day is. On the first site I clicked onto, I forget which one, but a major news outlet, the lead story was about some guy doing an Old Spice commercial. I switched to ABC news, thinking I might get some serious stuff. The lead on that one was a photo of Chelsea Clinton leaving her New York apartment without her makeup on.

I know news takes in a lot of territory, from the serious to the more just human and celebrity interest, but apparently the news media powers that be figure Americans would rather not dwell so much on the serious and sometimes uncomfortable.

Don’t be surprised if we are all not caught by surprise again.

A slight difference, maybe, between commentator and analyst…

Not that it makes much difference, but in my just-previous post addressing the firing by NPR of Juan Williams I referred to him as a “commentator”. But I came to realize that NPR refers to him as having been a news “analyst” and furthermore, NPR CEO Vivian Schiller makes a distinction between the two terms in explaining why NPR feels William’s remarks about his personal feelings were out of line.

The distinction really is not that clear. When I took newspaper type journalism in college I was told that opinion pieces belong on the opinion page, not the regular news columns, except that one could run what is called an “analysis” piece, if marked as such, among the regular news columns and it could include opinions by the author. In addition there is a further muddying of the waters of objectivity in most (good) news stories in that the writer will feel it necessary to provide some at least limited background information to explain what people are talking about or even to point out an inconsistency, such as when a politician claims to be in favor of one thing but it is pointed out by the writer that the day before he said something entirely opposite.

(Outisde of journalism, I could see a real difference between a written report, such as on an investment, that offers a true objective analysis, the pros and cons, if you will, and a promotional flyer, which of course would only tout the claimed merits of something.)

One more thing, even though I continue to question the judgment and motives of NPR, which does receive public funding, for firing Williams, I also question Williams’ credibility for even being associated with FOX News. Perhaps it’s the millions of dollars FOX offers. Money makes ethics fly out the window.

Journalism is a strange business. Being a former working journalist, I have true empathy for all those journalists who worked so diligently for all those years for such low pay only to see these hot-shot TV and Cable TV so-called journalists pull down multi-million dollar salaries with some or many letting their ethics be compromised along the way.

I do not think that money always corrupts people, but at the same time I have observed that it often does.

I’ve gone a little crazy on this link to articles thing, but a good discussion on the Williams affair can be seen at: http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/juan-williams-offends-npr/?hp

NPR accuses Juan Williams of being not fair and unbalanced and fires him, but that is not right

In firing news reporter and commentator Juan Williams for remarks about people wearing “Muslim garb” while he is getting on an airplane making him “nervous” I believe National Public Radio has made a grave mistake. A news commentator — note I said “commentator” — should not be fired for telling the truth and for, well, commentating.

If his sole job was that of a reporter where his duty would be only to report facts, not his personal opinion, then he would have been off base.

It seems by what I have read so far that NPR was already displeased that he was working for another network, FOX, where he made his remarks.

While I personally would question William’s judgment for working for an outfit which does not even put on a pretense of objectivity and yet claims itself to be “fair and balanced”, I still think NPR was wrong.

And let’s be honest here: I have listened to public radio and television news over the years and have appreciated its wide-ranging and in-depth coverage. But while I have found public broadcasting to be more detailed and wide-ranging in its reporting than the others out there and somewhat more objective, I have also been aware that it does have that slightly left leaning stance. Many big three network correspondents had that too. So in reaction, FOX News was created. The only difference was that FOX, despite its claim to be “fair and balanced”, adding, “we report, you decide”, does not really give any effort to being fair or balanced. They are hard right wing, so much so that they are not a news organization that leans a little to the right, they are a propaganda machine.

But if the firing of Juan Williams stands, I’m afraid that NPR is in danger of becoming nothing but a propaganda outfit, as well.

I understand it does not depend solely upon taxpayer financing, but it does get some. If it is going to demand its news commentators only lean one way (and I do not understand really why getting nervous that someone might blow up your airplane makes you politically biased), then taxpayer funding should be eliminated. But I do not want that to happen. I think the person or persons who fired Williams should be fired and Williams hired back.

Again, I remind you that Williams was not just a reporter but a commentator. For that matter, as a former newspaper reporter, now that I think of it, I have almost never heard nor seen a broadcast news person yet who did not mix commentary with straight news, something that is considered a no-no in print journalism. The format and time frame for broadcast may make that necessary, I suppose — I worked once for a while as a radio reporter, although I do not recall mixing reporting and personal opinion during my stint.

Williams made his offensive-to-some-people remarks as part of a discussion about the perils of “political correctness” and thus became a victim of the same.

And in seems interesting and a bit chilling to me that the person who apparently fired him, NPR CEO Vivian Schiller, later said something to the effect that Williams should not have made the remarks in public but instead should have told his “psychiatrist” (she later apologized for saying that — but she did not immediately fire herself). Accusing someone of having mental problems when they say something that does not agree with your political point of view is a tactic used by totalitarian governments, most notably communists — adding more to the claim that NPR is left-leaning (being as communists are said to be on the left — and I have always had a hard time with that since communists and Nazis act the same and yet one is said to be on the far left and one on the far right and even though Nazis are supposed to be on the right, and hate communists because they are on the far left, they, the Nazis, called themselves “national socialists“, but I have just digressed into a whole other issue or discussion).

—————-

In case you did not see or hear this yet, this is how all this came down: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/Should-NPR-Have-Fired-Juan-Williams-for-Muslim-Airplane-Remarks-5479/

Or for a more analytical take on what Williams said: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036697/#39803146

————————————-

ADD 1

Don’t get to feeling too sorry for poor Juan, though, he has reportedly been offered a new three-year, $2 million contract by FOX (somehow you wonder if such journalists/entertainers feel the pain of the common man).

———————————————– 

P.s.

While good manners and civility are important, political correctness is Orwellian and a threat to free speech.

Newspapers seem more on their way out than ever; with fewer freebies for news a new demand might be created

With the news that the publisher of the New York Times, Arthur Sulzberger, acknowledged that the newspaper of record for the United States will eventually go out of print and be completely replaced by the online edition it seems to me those of us who have loved reading actual paper newspapers have to accept that they are going the way of the horse and buggy.

(I just read about his comments in the Huffington Post, an online-only newspaper. Some cruel irony there, I guess.)

Add to this the recent news that the Oxford Standard Dictionary will no longer be put out in a book form, and add to this that, as I understand it, textbook sales are down because schools use computers a lot, and add to that the fact Amazon sells more e-books than regular books (I think I read that) and it seems that we may lose the medium of the physically printed word, although we still can read words on the computer screen or on other electronic devices that I am not acquainted with.

Along these same lines, I miss real letters. Of course I never write any. I recently heard that those born after 1990 consider e-mail a slow form of communication — they’re all into things like Facebook and Twitter (both of which I have never used). I sent my granddaughter an e-mail the other day and wondered why she had not answered it, but her mother tells me that she does not get around to all her e-mails as much anymore because she’s all into the social networking sites.

It seems as if the only future for real paper newspapers is on the local level, the community newspaper level, although I am not sure there is even much of a future there.

The citizens of the community of Bell in Los Angeles County found out they were being ripped off by their city government, with the city manager pulling down some $800,000 per year, and bloated pay going to other officials and city council members as well. They were also being illegally taxed. They only found this out through the reporting of the LA Times newspaper. I don’t know if Bell has its own community newspaper or not. But without traditional investigative newspaper type reporting scandals like this stay hidden. Some entity has to be willing to pay reporters for digging with no quick return on profits (although in the long run the value of such efforts can bring a news organization profit).

 —————————

As an aside, I should add that no offense to Bell, but to an outsider like me who only drives through and picks up freight there from time to time, it is an indistinguishable part of the LA concrete jungle that surrounds LA proper.

————————-

My main concern is that there be a reliable medium for straight news that will have the resources and the concern by those who run it to gather and report news in a quality and timely manner. It has always been a problem on the local level for a variety of reasons. One is that local newspapers are often staffed by beginners or to be painfully honest by those who may not quite be up to snuff for the big time. And I do not mean to libel or slander those hard-working souls and what I just wrote is not always the case anyway. I once labored in the small time. I did my best. I did not really make much of an effort to make it into the big time — probably spent too much time trying to just get away from small time journalism into something else entirely. We all have our own life stories and needs and aspirations (and we all make mistakes).

Another problem is that small newspapers often do not have the revenue to support a dynamic news gathering and reporting effort. And that has become a problem for the larger newspapers as well, having lost ad revenue to other mediums, such as the internet. And then there is lack of interest. For some reason, local reporting in many places just does not draw the interest as it might have at one time. So many people live lives disconnected with the communities in which they live that there just is not the potential readership available.

But it is not just local reporting I am concerned about. I have written this before, but I say again, newspapers have been the foundation of the whole news gathering effort. They got much of their regional and national and international news from what at least used to be called news wire services. Reporters trained as newspapermen gathered news and it was shared with membership papers. In the case of the Associated Press (AP) member newspapers would share their own generated stories with each other. Broadcast news, radio and television, originally recruited its news reporters from the print world.

While television largely took the lead in reporting the news, with its advantage of immediacy and live pictures, what a lot of people outside the news business may not have realized is that TV (and radio) was getting a large portion of its material from the newspapers and wire services. I worked for a short time at a small radio station. We got the local newspaper each day so we could find out what the news was. We did do our own reporting, but we used the newspapers and its resources, limited as they were (I know, I used to work for it too) as the basis for our (several) daily local news reports.

The internet has come along with a whole host of sites, many of which are really news commentary but many of which are straight news. They call them news aggregators. They get their material from other news sources, including newspapers and wire services. I have always wondered what they will do when all the real news gathering mediums go out of business. I did read that some of these sites are now recruiting their own news gathering staffs — I guess this is the evolution of the news business.

There has always been a split in the news business between those dedicated to actually gathering and reporting news and those dedicated solely or at least more to simply making money by selling advertising, for, except in a limited fashion, no one has come up with a business model in which people will actually pay for news (newsstand or subscription prices only offset, but do not actually pay the costs or allow for profit). But with the New York Times hinting it may eventually abandon its print edition and with it in fact promising to put up a pay wall so there are fewer to no freebies on the internet, I could see a market or a created demand for news, maybe.