Journalism & Media

Jack’s Anti-Political Correctness, Political Bloodsport and Contrived Offense Crusade: Progress Report

/ Jack Marshall / 20 Comments

As I noted earlier, I am in New Mexico talking to journalists here about the Pat Rogers affair. You can sample one of the fruits of my labors here, a story in the Santa Fe New Mexican. It’s pretty accurate, as press interviews go, though the last quote was botched. I didn’t say that I was a “Greek American conservative Democrat with an anti-war war hero father,” but that my diverse views were the product of “a Greek American conservative Democrat mother and  an anti-war war hero father.” [ UPDATE: This has been corrected.]

If you’ve missed the various posts on this issue, you can find them here, here and here.

One odd note: during my meeting with several reporters from the paper, one of them suggested that making a joke about Custer’s Last Stand was like making a joke about the Holocaust. I let it pass, but the comment seems bizarre to me. Custer, after all, got himself and his men killed, and it was his opposition that was the object of genocide, not the cavalry. Why would ridiculing Custer offend Native Americans?

Five Sarcastic Observations About The Least Surprising Ethics Story Of The Year…

/ Jack Marshall / 23 Comments

….Hands down.

And in addition, we can all agree, can we not, that:

  1. …this does not indicate media bias?
  2. …the timing was completely coincidental, and had nothing to do with journalists fearing that their candidate might lose?
  3. …there was no ethical obligation on the part of responsible news media to make certain that its coverage was balanced in the final week, given its likely disparate impact in a close race?
  4. …this had no impact on the election?
  5. …Nate Silver knew it was going to be like this all along?

______________________________________

Graphic: Davintosh

Ethics Dunces: The Petraeus Defenders

/ Jack Marshall / 2 Comments

I know I have touched on this before regarding the Petraeus scandal (and elsewhere), but it bears emphasizing—especially since so many seem to be unable to process the concept. Leaders cannot be seen as willing to violate their own rules, principles and those of the organizations they represent. Arguing that the rules violated are foolish, or outdated, or too restrictive does not rebut this fact of leadership in any way, but making that argument does show beyond question that the pundit making it doesn’t comprehend the most basic facts of leadership and the building of ethical cultures.

Today’s Sunday papers are awash in editorials and op-ed pieces by former intelligence personnel, lawyers, social scientists and other pundits blaming the widening Petraeus scandal ( now focusing on Gen. John Allen, the U.S. commander in Kabul, and the significance of his exchanging thousands of inappropriate emails with Jill Kelley, the Tampa socialite who is apparently the military equivalent of a rock-and-roll groupie, only older) on antiquated morals and political opportunism. There are too many of these bewildered commentators to count, but their views all ooze from the same basic, shockingly facile, and in some cases intentionally misleading theory, which is that Petraeus’s and Allen’s conduct are irrelevant to their ability to do their jobs. The Washington Post’s David Ignatius, usually one of the more rational and objective of that paper’s leftward chorus, actually reprints verbatim an e-mail he received from an Arab diplomatic source as if it contains illumination rather than naiveté:

“He needs to resign cause he has an affair? What da hell??? He is brilliant!!!! Why like this????” Continue reading →

Accountabilty Check: President Obama’s Bizarre Defense of Susan Rice

/ Jack Marshall / 25 Comments

“Don’t pick on my poor. defenseless, untrustworthy ambassador!”

Add to the list of the Top Ten Outrageous Remarks of President Obama this stunner, the low-light of his first full press conference since March.

“If Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham and others want to go after somebody they should go after me. For them to go after the UN ambassador who had nothing to do with Benghazi…to besmirch her reputation is outrageous.”

“Accountability” continues to be an alien ethical concept to the President, and this proves it. U.N. Ambassador Rice went on the Sunday morning TV shows four days after the deadly Benghazi attack and after U.S. intelligence had determined that the attack that killed the American ambassador in Libya was not a spontaneous demonstration sparked by an anti-Islam video, but a planned, organized, terrorist enterprise. She did this while asserting in no uncertain terms that the attack was not what U.S. intelligence had told the State Department and the White House that it was. Rice, in making this mistaken or dishonest case on behalf of the administration, put her name, her status, her credibility and her position behind it. From the moment she became the Administration’s spokesperson on Benghazi, she had something to do with Benghazi. Continue reading →

A No Tolerance Rule For Cabinet Members: Don’t Threaten Reporters

/ Jack Marshall / 6 Comments

Intolerable.

I’ll make this simple, and get right to the point: any Cabinet member who threatens a reporter with physical violence for doing the job journalists are supposed to do should be fired. No exceptions. Moreover, that should be obvious and beyond debate.

Ken Salazar, the Secretary of the Interior, didn’t like a question he was asked by Colorado Springs Gazette reporter Dave Philipps. The investigative reporter had tried to reach Salazar for months through his press secretary seeking a comment on a story Philipps had written about how a Colorado man with business connections to Salazar had been sold hundreds of federally protected wild horses that have subsequently vanished. The man is under investigation, and one of his businesses is slaughtering horses, not that any of this is germane to how Salazar treated Phillipps.  When Philipps began asking Salazar about the program and possible personal ties he had to the wild horse buyer now under investigation, Salazar abruptly ended the interview. He then pushed The Gazette’s camera aside, got nose to nose with the reporter, and said, pointing, “Don’t you ever…you know what, you do that again… I’ll punch you out.” Continue reading →

Gen. Allen, Lockheed, John Edwards, Restraint Bias,and Further Musings on the Petraeus-Broadwell Ethics Train Wreck

/ Jack Marshall / 62 Comments

Run away!

In no particular order:

  • In a tack that is being duplicated by other commentators on the left, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow essentially pronounced the scandal as much ado about nothing (Columnist E.J. Dionne dismissively referred to Petraeus’s affair as his “little secret”). See, as long as an incident involves sex, the Left’s default position is that it can’t be that bad. Maddow mocked the actions of Jill Kelley, the woman who Broadwell threatened and who alerted the FBI, saying, “Who contacts the FBI because of threatening e-mails? If I did that, they would have to set up a special division just for me.” Ha ha.  How many of your threatening e-mails credibly suggested that the head of an intelligence agency was having an illicit affair with an unstable wacko, Rachel? Kelley did the responsible, intelligent thing given the possible national security implications. But it’s certainly good to know that you wouldn’t…because it’s only sex, of course.
  • Other pundits are complaining that the FBI became involved when what Petraeus did “wasn’t a crime.”  Yes,  it’s the “It’s legal” rationalization. Why people who can’t comprehend that dangerous, destructive, serious misconduct can occur without breaking any laws are allowed to write newspaper columns, I’ll never understand. Petraeus’s affair was a violation of the ethics rules, in an intelligence agency with major responsibilities in national security. That is serious, inherently dangerous, and easily could have led to security breaches that were illegal. If a leader materially, knowingly and publicly violates an ethics rule, he cannot lead. This is why Petraeus, who understands this, resigned, despite the certainty that the Rachel Maddows of the media would have been happy to shrug off his actions as “no big deal.” …because it’s only sex, and “it’s legal.”
  • Kelley still boarded the ethics train wreck, not because of her actions in response to Broadwell’s threat, but in light of the revelation that she was maintaining a hot e-mail relationship with Gen. John R. Allen, the commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan. The FBI has uncovered between 20,000 and 30,000 pages of primarily e-mails containing “potentially inappropriate” communication between Allen and Kelley. Wait, what? Between 20,000 and 30,000 pages? What the hell is going on with our generals? This is obsessive, unhealthy behavior, even if he’s just writing her limericks and recipes. Something is serious amiss in the ethical culture of the U.S. military leadership Continue reading →

Ethics Train Wreck Watch: The Petraeus-Broadwell Affair

/ Jack Marshall / 13 Comments

There is too much information awaiting disclosure to do a thorough ethical analysis at this point, but it is already clear beyond question that the David Petraeus-Paula Broadwell scandal is an ethics train wreck, with many more individuals and perhaps institutions involved than the direct participants. Today’s news reports that the adulterous affair prompting the much-respected CIA Director’s sudden resignation was triggered by Broadwell’s  threatening e-mails to another women she suspected of vying for the General’s affections clinches train wreck status. This thing is still rolling.

Other features of the wreck-in-progress: Continue reading →

Christina Hendricks Reductio Ad Absurdum

/ Jack Marshall / 33 Comments

Should SHE be insulted at “full-figured’?

Many commenters on my post regarding Christina Hendricks’ abrupt termination of an Australian interview have argued vociferously that the actress  was justified, suggesting that my criticism of her is sexist and unfair. I have pointed out that her objections to being referred to as “full-figured” were in flagrant disregard of the interviewer’s obvious meaning (she is famously voluptuous). I have noted that Ms. Hendricks’ curves are, in professional terms, her “bread and butter”—her trademark, her most salesworthy asset, her primary advantage over her competitors, the basis of her notoriety, the focus of her wardrobe, and the main reason she is a popular subject of photographers, an international celebrity and wealthy.  To no avail. My argument that such a woman should not be indignant when the most obvious reason she is in a position to be interviewed at all comes up in a question in a publicity interview, whether the question is gracefully phrased or not, falls on deaf ears.

So I now invite these treasured Ethics Alarms gender warriors to engage in this simple thought experiment. Would they extend their defense to Christina if she were one of these remarkable women?

Presumably so.

If not, I’d be fascinated to learn the reasoning.

This Is Obviously Wrong, But What IS It?

/ Jack Marshall / 78 Comments

“Me? ‘Full-figured?’ How DARE you?”

Christina Hendricks, the voluptuous actress who is one of the stars of the AMC cable drama “Mad Men,” reportedly stopped an interview on Australian TV when an interviewer referred to her as “full-figured.”

Christina earns millions of dollars with her figure, and exhibits it regularly and enthusiastically. If her figure isn’t accurately described as full, I don’t know what “full” is.What was the term she was expecting? “Spectacular?” “Eye-popping”?

“GwGahhhhmehenkRgh”?

Now that we have that definition straight, what is the proper description of her conduct toward the interviewer? Unfair? Dishonest? Unkind? Isn’t it a bait and switch? To me, it seems like a less debatable example of the conduct I criticized  by Comic Con attendee Mandy Caruso. Mandy, however, was undeniably treated crudely and impolitely, and had every reason to end the interview.

There needs to be a specific name for this sort of thing—intentionally courting a particular kind of comment or treatment, and then punishing those who take the bait. Is there one? I can’t seem to think of it, if there is.

_______________________________________________

Facts: Daily Motion

Graphic: Share Your Wallpapers

More Advice Column Malpractice: “Dear Prudence,” Elder Abuse and Voter Fraud

/ Jack Marshall / 3 Comments

I have to wonder about the values, ethics and trustworthiness of any publication that employs an advice columnist as deeply incompetent and unethical as Emily Yoffe, a.k.a “Dear Prudence.” I’m sure that I would be compelled to correct her regularly if I read her responses with any frequency, which is one of the reasons I don’t read the column. 2011 Ethics Alarms Commenter of the Year tgt just flagged this horrific example of Emily’s craft, and correctly guessed my reaction, writing, “get ready to facepalm.”  Now that my visage is permanently concave, allow me to retort.

The query comes from a woman whose mother has filled in absentee ballots for her parents, voting her own preferences and not consulting them. Worse, the grandmother, who is suffering from Alzheimer’s, is a life-long partisan of the party her daughter voted against on her behalf.  The questioner asks “Prudence,” “Should I attempt to intervene in some way?” Continue reading →