Caught red-handed in unethical conduct, the right, honest, courageous and yes, practical thing to do is to admit wrongdoing, eschew excuses, acknowledge fault, express contrition, and resolve not to behave in a similar manner again. Unfortunately, this is difficult for many people, especially, it seems, those in the public eye. Another reason it is difficult is that people who engage in grossly unethical conduct tend to gravitate to unethical responses when they are called to account for it.
We are currently awash in examples of this phenomenon:
I. Time explains that its fat slur cover on Chris Christie wasn’t what it seemed.
Ethics Alarms was one of the first to call foul on Time’s unprofessional “Elephant in the room” cover on New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, and the condemnation of it was almost universal. There was no defense for this, a purely juvenile and biased insult masked as journalism. An ethical organization would have immediately responded:
‘Time used poor judgment in its language on the recent Chris Christie cover, which was gratuitously insulting to the Governor and millions of Americans. It was wrong to mock the governor because of his weight, as it is wrong to denigrate anyone based on their physical appearance. This was a failure of our editing process, by our staff, and of the entire organization, which failed to meet the high standards of professionalism, fairness, civility and integrity that Time has traditionally strived to meet, and has met in the past. We apologize to Governor Christie and our readers. Everyone should expect better of Time magazine, and we betrayed that trust. We vow to work diligently to regain it.’
What Time really did was…
- First, protest that no slur was intended, thus insulting the intelligence of every one of its readers, journalists and the public. Time’s editor told MSNBC, which naturally sees nothing wrong with slurring Republicans, since it does so many times a day..
“Well, he’s obviously a big guy. He’s obviously a big Republican. But he’s also done a really huge thing here this week. He stood astride the Republican Party and said, ‘Stop. We don’t have to make our whole appeal about narrow base issues.’ And that campaign showed it with the demographics you talked about.”
- Second, argued on cable shows and its website in the alternative ( a lawyer tactic: “If you don’t buy that defense, here’s a contradictory one that you might like better…”) that Chris Christie has made fun of his own weight on occasion, and is a good sport about it, so it’s no big deal. The editors do know that this is indistinguishable from the ever-popular “Hey, they call themselves niggers and joke about it, so why can’t we call them niggers too?” defense. don’t they? Sure they do. But it’s worth a shot, right, Time?
II. The brother of disgraced and disgraceful Toronto Mayor Rob Ford, City Councilman Doug Ford, defends his brother
Toronto is proving that it can be as ridiculous as American cities like Washington, D.C. (Marion Barry) and San Diego (Bob Filner) by struggling to deal with a law-breaking, substance-abusing, lying and embarrassing mayor when the obvious course is to throw the bum out. In yesterday’s hilarious city council meeting in which Mayor Ford faced withering questioning, a low point of sorts was reached when his brother, Councilman Doug Ford, offered this indignant defense of his bro, aiming his brilliant analysis at his fellow city council members:
“None of you have done anything wrong, ever. Never….Have you ever smoked marijuana? Have you ever smoked marijuana? Have you ever smoked marijuana? Yes or no. Have you smoked marijuana? I guess the answer is yes. Don’t come across as though you’re holier than thou because you’re not. Everyone should be careful about throwing rocks in a glass house.”
Hey, good one, Doug! I guess you told them! Now back to work in the bait shop, please.
This is a true rationalization tour de force. Everybody does it! They’re just as bad! Who are you to judge? Nobody’s perfect! Doug may be a good brother, but his ethical bearings and powers of analysis are pathetic. If he asked the question, “Are you mayor of Toronto who has smoked crack on video and lied about it, been drunk in public and on the job, and thoroughly disgraced your position, the government, the city and your country? Well? Are you?,” I would say that his hypocrisy defense would have some foundation. However, after he got the obvious answer, “No, of course not!” his proper recourse would be to respond, “Oh. Never mind then. Of course the city council can judge the conduct of the mayor, since that’s its job. Carry on.”
Doug is not as embarrassing as his brother, because that would be impossible. He is still an embarrassment, however.
III. Washington Post op-ed columnist Richard Cohen cries foul over criticism that he revealed racist sentiments and insulted much of the country in this week’s column by writing,
“People with conventional views must repress a gag reflex when considering the mayor-elect of New York — a white man married to a black woman and with two biracial children. (Should I mention that Bill de Blasio’s wife, Chirlane McCray, used to be a lesbian?) This family represents the cultural changes that have enveloped parts — but not all — of America. To cultural conservatives, this doesn’t look like their country at all.”
Cohen, who has driven me crazy with his weird mixture of knee-jerk left-wing bias mixed with sexism and the occasional perceptive and brave observation, had no ethical choice other than to say…
‘My choice of words was foolish, insulting and wrong. Most Americans completely accept mixed race families, and for me to say that “conventional” people do not was indefensible. It was an ugly thought carelessly expressed, and should not have found its way into print. I apologize to the Post, its readers, Mayor de Blasio, his family, New York City, and the millions of fair-minded Americans whose character I gratuitously slurred.’
Cohen played the victim, and protested:
“What I was doing was expressing not my own views but those of extreme right-wing Republican tea party people. I don’t have a problem with interracial marriage or same-sex marriage. In fact, I exult in them. It’s a slanderto suggest otherwise. This is just below the belt. It’s a purposeful misreading of what I wrote. I think it’s reprehensible to say that because you disagree with something that you should fire me. That’s what totalitarians do.”
Two writers have issued superb take-downs of Cohen following this, and I will defer to them; I couldn’t possibly do better. First Slate’s David Weigel, who wrote,
“That’s still quite an assertion about a group of people Cohen didn’t even try to talk to for his column. He could have asked Tea Partiers whether they were bothered by Clarence Thomas’ marriage to a white woman, given that she took a (short-lived) role as a would-be Tea Party leader in 2009 and 2010. He could have asked about their reaction to FreedomWorks Outreach Director Deneen Borelli, whose husband, Tom, is white. Or, because anecdotal evidence is only worth so much, he could have “taken the Internet express” to Gallup.com and noticed that 85 percent of whites and 70 percent of elderly people are fine with interracial marriage. He could have shelled out for some current political science research, which suggests that “there is no difference between the racial attitudes of the general white population and self-identified tea party members.” He could have. Instead, Cohen made up a claim about a bunch of conservatives probably holding circa-1960 racial views. It’s the sort of claim any columnist with sense or a work ethic would probably veto right away, but it jibes with a stereotype of conservatives, so even the publisher of the Washington Post gave it an attaboy.”
In a tweet, attached by Weigel, Post publisher Katherine Weymouth pronounced Cohen’s column as “brilliant.” Now you know how someone like Cohen has written columns for the Post for so long. Now, leaving the best for last, here is the climax of the wonderfully acid post by Patrick, Ken White’s performance artist colleague on Popehat. Taking off from Cohen’s claim that dismissing a columnist for lazy, biased, and bigoted writing that insults most of a newspaper’s readers and most of the population of the U.S. is “totalitarian,” Patrick writes…
I am about to send this email to the Washington Post:
To the editors:
It was disappointing to read Richard Cohen’s Monday bloviation to the effect that the majority of the Post’s readers (“people with conventional views”) become sick to their stomachs when contemplating the biracial children of Mayor Bill DeBlasio. Sheltered as he is in his Manhattan enclave, Mr. Cohen perhaps is unaware that race relations outside Tribeca have improved greatly since the dark days of Jim Crow. It seems that Mr. Cohen has lost all touch with the America he writes about. Accordingly, I suggest that perhaps it is time to put Mr. Cohen out to pasture as a columnist emeritus, allowing him to retire into the sunset with his generous pension and the grateful memories of readers who recall the days when Mr. Cohen was sane.
Sources: 11Alive, Time, the Star, Washington Post, Slate, Popehat
18 thoughts on “Unethical Excuses From All Over: Time Magazine, Richard Cohen, and Toronto”
With regards to the second Time excuse (That Christie makes jokes at his own weight, so it’s OK):
When the issue of bullying comes up, I’ve said here and elsewhere that an invaluable lesson is when somebody bullies you (“Hey, fatty! You’re fat!”) it’s perfectly OK to respond with some form of the sentiment “Thanks, and go F**k yourself.” One of the few things that I truly sympathize with politicians about is that they can’t do that. Imagine the outrage if Christie responded to the next round of bashing his political skill on the grounds that fat people are dumb, by telling the “reporter” he could either present his dietician or medical credentials or otherwise go to hell. He’d be buried alive.
You do know that he’s already done that, right? And was generally applauded for it. This is what Christie does well, and everyone seriously underestimates him as a result. Unlike almost everyone else on the political scene, he is genuine, comfortable in his own skin, and won’t take crap just because it’s expected. I have to believe that there are enough sane Republicans to realize that despite his moderate tendencies, he is a gift from the Gods of Politics who is their best chance to take the White House (I think he would thrash Hillary, even with the expected help she’ll get from the media) and a natural leader besides.
I did hear about him referring to the fact that his health is between he and his doctor, but I’m sure he still couched it in something vaguely political and nice, because a serious contender can’t go on record cussing someone out. I hope he maintains that perfect balance of not being a punching bag but not being seen as too sarcastic or angry either.
That’s his challenge:
A former White House doctor who publicly suggested Chris Christie needs to lose weight says that the New Jersey governor phoned her to yell about the comments.
Dr. Connie Mariano, a Scottsdale, Ariz., physician who worked for nine years in the White House medical unit, tells KTVK-TV in Phoenix that Christie angrily called after she gave an interview to CNN suggesting he’s at risk of having a heart attack or a stroke if he doesn’t lose weight.
While on CNN, Mariano described herself as a Christie supporter who wants him to run for president and warned the governor’s health could hurt his potential 2016 race. Her comments came after Christie appeared on the “Late Show With David Letterman” and poked fun at jokes about his weight by eating a doughnut during the interview.
“It’s almost like a time bomb waiting to happen unless he addresses those issues before running for office,” said Mariano, who attended to former Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush during her time at the White House.
Asked about Mariano’s comments at a press conference on Wednesday, Christie lashed out, calling her “just another hack who wants five minutes on TV.”
“If she wants to get on a plane and come here to New Jersey and ask me if she wants to examine me and review my medical history I will have a conversation with her about that,” Christie said. “Until that time she should shut up.”
Mariano says that after the press conference, Christie called and yelled at her.
“It was essentially the tone of the press conference only louder,” Mariano told KTVK. “It was hard to get anything across.”
A Christie spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment on whether the governor phoned Mariano and, if so, what the tone of that conversation was.
Mariano says she’s now rethinking whether she would support a Christie candidacy for the White House.
“The way he’s acted lately I don’t think so. He wasn’t very nice to me,” Mariano told KTVK. “Is this presidential? I’ll have to think about that. Is this a presidential way to behave? C’mon.”
Of course, it’s unethical for a physician to offer a diagnosis of someone she hasn’t examined. Personally, I’m glad he yelled at her. She deserved it.
“He wasn’t very nice to me…”
If I had been the subject of her comment, she would have gotten a second phone call, and it would have required her to re-index the phrase “not nice” for a much higher baseline…
I might have needed to call back from a second phone due to the first one melting from my anger…
This sort of person is exactly why I have come to the conclusion that not only is this country doomed, but that I also no longer give a damn that it is doomed.
That’s the incident I heard about- and it illustrates my point exactly. She acted ridiculously and offered a diagnosis (or at least an implied one) without even seeing him up close, but as soon as he told her she was being an ass she went back to the news to say that wasn’t very presidential. I fear that sort of thing will continue, as people try to paint him as a hothead because he doesn’t laugh along like a good jolly fatboy.
Time could try to make amends by displaying a prominent Democrat (any of them are appropriate) with the headline: “The Ass in the Room”
I’ve already posted the instant rimshot link on one article here already, so I’ll refrain, but good show sir.
It would have to be asses. There’s just too many. Gee, I think I’m being partisan. Nobody would hire me to be a ‘responsible journalist’ 😉
I’m starting to dislike this Cohen chap…
re: “I have come to the conclusion that not only is this country doomed, but that I also no longer give a damn that it is doomed.”
My attitude is indistinguishable from yours and AM’s, insofar as I can self-examine. Are we casualties of Ethics Alarms? (Is Jack liable [snickering]?) Have I contributed in any way to transmitting “communicable Eeyore-itis?” Is it unethical to confess a high degree of hopelessness, let alone emphasize that it exists – or to let it be influential at all in one’s thinking, let alone let it be dominant when trying to express and communicate? Is there anything within us which makes it unethical for us to respond to what is observable external to us with as much hopelessness as we think we feel? I don’t know – I just know that today, I do not have optimism that I had, or that seemed reasonable for me to have, yesterday.
I assure you, I was like this long before I came to Ethics Alarms…
Me too, been an Eeyore for years – but have been trying to wage an uphill battle against that for two years now, and today I am all but certain I’m even farther downhill than where I started.
My family has often (as a joke I think) called me Eeyore, but then they sometimes compare me to Miss Piggy as well. I’m pretty sure it’s not unethical to express despair and anger. Drama queen may be a bit unethical however.
Maybe we feel this way because as we have gotten older, we have acquired or developed a better comprehension of ethics – a good thing. As a result, we are more perceptive of unethical behavior and have more sensitive ethics alarms – also good things. Meanwhile, time ticks, and we realize that the end of our time is rapidly approaching – a bad thing, if one’s desire is to go on living forever. As a result, any hope we may have had that what we would see of people’s behavior in the world would be trending better, or more often toward good (as in, less unethical), is dashed, crushed, mocked, destroyed. So the “logical” emotional response is despair: We see the course of human events as a pile of failure, and worse, we see ourselves as failures.
Thinking this way (above) causes me to retreat to one of my mantras: namely, that rationality is merely a subset of irrationality. At least that starts to help me to feel a little better, for a moment.
“Everyone should be careful about throwing rocks in a glass house.”
Why would you throw rocks “in” a glass house? You would just destroy your house with no chance of striking your opponent. I guess if you were drunk or…oh.