Lawrence O’Donnell’s unconscionable roast of GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain —-no fair journalist would call it an “interview”—made me realize that broadcast journalism ethics have fractured to the point where it is unfair to apply the same ethics standards to different networks and programs. My initial reaction to seeing O’Donnell’s over-the-top performance was that it represented a new low in broadcast journalism interview ethics. Now I think that is unrealistic and unfair. O’Donnell’s conduct was what MSNBC’s audiences want to see, and what critics should expect to see. Herman Cain, the target in this case, consented to the abuse. Where’s the unethical journalism? There was no journalism. Continue reading
Journalism & Media
“Hmmmm!”: Conflicts of Interest, Appearance of Impropriety, the National Parks Service
David Uberuaga, real estate whiz
David Uberuaga, then superintendent of Mount Rainier National Park sold his Ashford, Washington home to the owner of Rainier Mountaineering, Inc. for three times the property’s assessed value, while Uberuaga was charged with oversight of the concessionaire. Later, Park Service Director Jon Jarvis, at one time Uberuaga’s immediate boss, saw that Uberuaga was appointed the superintendent of Grand Canyon National Park. This is especially interesting in view of the fact that Jarvis’s older brother, Destry Jarvis, has been a lobbyist on behalf of motorized river runners on the Colorado River, which runs through that park.
Hmmmm.
Do you agree with that? “Hmmmm”? Because in government ethics, “Hmmmm” is enough to indicate that the appearance of impropriety threshold has been crossed. The public isn’t supposed to think, “Hmmmm.” In this case, however, how could they not? To prevent “Hmmmm,” Jarvis needed to remove himself from any decision affecting a National Park that is being lobbied by his brother. To prevent “Hmmmm,” Uberuaga can’t have business transactions, especially mysteriously enriching ones, with a company that seeks contracts with a park that he manages. Continue reading
Ethics Confusion in Ken Burns’ “Prohibition”
I enjoy all of Ken Burns’ documentary series, and I am grateful for them. They do a better job of teaching history than the schools, and they are always thought-provoking and, of course, beautifully executed. At the same time, I am aware of the limitations in Burns’ approach, beginning with his genre. Documentaries are inherently misleading works, more misleading in the hands of some, like Michael More, than others. The sifting of which material to use, how to balance issues, choices of photographs and film footage and even the inflections of voice betrayed by narrators (To his credit, Burns has all of his narrators deliver their script in the exact same measured and deliberately-paced tones; I found myself wondering how many times Burns forced “Prohibition” narrator Peter Coyote to listen to previous Burns stand-ins David McCullough and John Chancellor in “The Civil War” and “Baseball” until he sounded as much like their clone as they sounded like identical twins) unavoidably slant the final product, sometimes unintentionally, but usually with a motive. To the extent that viewers realize this, it is an ethical medium, but for most, especially those unfamiliar with the subject matter and with no independent knowledge to draw on, it is not.“Prohibition,” Burns’ latest PBS series that debuted last week, has a more obtrusive agenda supported with more dubious logic than his previous documentaries, reminding me, at least, that his historical conclusions should always be taken with a measure of skepticism. Continue reading
Attorney General Holder, Fast and Furious, and Congressional Perjury
"Oh, NOW I see where the confusion is...AG Holder thought the Congressman was asking about when he saw the MOVIE called 'The Fast and Furious.' It's an honest mistake. The Attorney General loves his Netflix!"
It is looking increasingly likely that Attorney General Holder lied to Congress on May 2, 2011, when he was asked by House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa about when he knew about the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ Fast and Furious gun-running fiasco. In this he is following a grand tradition among U.S. Attorney Generals: the last one, Bush crony Alberto Gonzalez, almost certainly lied under oath to Congress too.
Fast and Furious was a botched gunrunning enforcement operation in which illegal guns that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives intentionally allowed to be smuggled into Mexico ended up being used to kill an Immigration Customs Enforcement agent and a U.S. border patrol guard. Holder was called before Issa’s committee in a typical “what did the top guy know and when did he know it?” inquiry. In response to the latter part of that question, Holder told the Committee that he was “not sure of the exact date, but I probably learned about Fast and Furious over the last few weeks.”
CBS and Fox News have uncovered a series of e-mails and memos that show unequivocally that this was not true. Continue reading
Hank Williams, Jr.: Victim of a Political Correctness Mugging
Wait---Hank Williams Jr. thinks Obama is like Jennifer Aniston?
On the Fox News morning couch-fest, country singer Hank Williams, Jr. had this exchange with the hosts:
HANK WILLIAMS: Remember the golf game?
STEVE DOOCY: Boehner?
HANK WILLIAMS: That was one of the biggest political mistakes ever.
CO-HOSTS: Why?
HANK WILLIAMS: That turned a lot of people off. You know, watching, you know, it just didn’t go over.
GRETCHEN CARLSON: You mean when John Boehner played golf with President Obama?
HANK WILLIAMS: Oh, yeah! Yeah. And Biden and Kasich, yeah. Uh-huh.
GRETCHEN CARLSON: What did you not like about it? It seems to be a really pivotal moment for you.
HANK WILLIAMS: Come on. Come on. It would be like Hitler playing golf with Netanyahu, OK?
It wasn’t OK, apparently. Headlines sprouted up like weeds claiming that Williams had “compared Obama to Hitler,” or “said Obama was like Hitler.” So because ESPN figured much of its audience would think that Hank Williams compared the President to Adolf Hitler, since the media was reporting his words that way, ESPN, that paragon of courage, fired Williams as the voice of Monday Night Football. No longer will his song introduce the festivities. Continue reading
The Washington Post, Rick Perry, and “Niggerhead”: A Confirmation Bias Conundrum
I'm bending over backwards trying to be fair about this...
The Washington Post splashed a strange front page story across its paper face on Sunday. I have no idea what to make of it, because I am trying as hard as I can to be objective, and the story repels objectivity like my cousin repels women. It is shot through with confirmation bias: what you think of it is hard to separate from what you already believe.
It appears that Rick Perry, early in his career (when he was a Democrat), used to host events at a hunting camp where there was a large boulder that had the word “Niggerhead” painted on it. Ranchers called the camp by that name—-once a common one for rock formations and creeks in Texas and other parts of the country—long before Perry and his father, Ray, began hunting there in the early 1980s. Perry’s father leased the property in 1983, and according to Perry, the first thing he did was to paint over the word on the rock. Perry says that when he first saw the rock, it was already painted over. But the Post found seven individuals who say they remember seeing the name on the rock during the time when Perry’s father’s name was on the lease. Apparently the old name is still visible through the paint. Eventually, Perry’s family paid to have the boulder flipped over so it couldn’t be read. Meanwhile, the Post says, “Longtime hunters, cowboys and ranchers said this particular place was known by that name as long as they could remember, and still is.”
What are we supposed to take away from all this? Continue reading
Ethics Hero: David Letterman
No Free Speech weenie he. Yale, take note.
I stopped watching David Letterman years ago, when I learned that he was an unapologetic serial sexual harasser. I don’t like to patronize the work of professionals, however talented, who should have been fired and would have, if their employers had any integrity. As a result, I missed Letterman’s ascent into ethics hero territory. It pains me to admit this, since I neither like nor generally respect him, but that is where David Letterman belongs.
On the June 5, 2011 edition of “The Late Show with David Letterman,” the host smilingly pulled his finger across his throat to note the U.S. military’s reported killing of Ilyas Kashmiri, an Islamist terrorist who was one of the organizers of a deadly attack in India that killed and wounded hundreds of innocent civilians. On a roll, Letterman made a joke about Osama bin Laden’s death as well.A group of radical Islamists took offense, and in a posting on the Islamist web forum Shumukh al-Islam, called for Letterman’s murder, urging the eventual assassin to cut out Letterman’s tongue.
The Dubious Ethics of Andy Rooney
A few words about the trustworthiness of Andy Rooney...and CBS News
“60 Minutes” curmudgeon Andy Rooney makes his cranky farewell this week, and the CBS newsmagazine can be expected to make a big deal over his retirement; after all, Rooney is the network’s last remaining link to the halcyon days of Edward R. Murrow. In his blog, journalist Paul McNamara recalls an encounter with Rooney 20 years ago that provides some insight into the regard a broadcast icon has for the truth, and perhaps the culture of news reporting at CBS.
McNamara, you see, was working at a newspaper that ran a syndicated Rooney column, and one day he discovered that one of the columns Rooney filed included his eye-witness report of something that occurred after he wrote the piece… Rooney had intentionally fabricated a scene he never saw. It was a minor misrepresentation in the context of the column, but a misrepresentation nonetheless. Continue reading
The Media Pundits’ Bigoted Preemptive Attack on Chris Christie
THIS seems to be a logical method for choosing a President.
Democrats and progressives are apparently terrified that a Republican will enter the presidential race who isn’t a religious zealot, a libertarian ideologue, a political tyro, a Mormon or a Texan, but a charismatic governor of a big northeastern state who is pragmatic, credible and successful. That would be Chris Christie, Governor of New Jersey, who may be about to throw his hat in the ring. So the word has gone out to the media, or the media is just sufficient trained to protect Democratic presidents without further instruction, that it needs to define Christie before the American public has a chance to form its own opinion, and the definition it has arrived at is fat.
You know, fat. As in Rush Limbaugh fat, fat like the political cartoonist Herblock always drew lobbyists and “Big Business.” Diamond Jim Brady fat; fat like Sydney Greenstreet, the villain in all those Humphrey Bogart movies. Fat means bad; fat means lazy; fat means unhealthy, and ugly. Fat people consume more than their share, and are disproportionately responsible for global warming and soaring health care costs, don’t you know. They have no self-control; they don’t have self-respect. We dread being stuck next to one of these porkers in an airplane. You can’t trust fat people. That’s really all you need to know about Chris Christie. This is America—we worship beautiful people. Fit people. Thin people….like, say, President Obama. Do we want to be led by someone who is fat? Of course not! Continue reading
The Ethically Messy, Legally Muddled, Drone Killing of Anwar al-Awlaki
Ah, those were the good old days: when warfare was simple, fair, brutal and stupid!
The C.I.A. drone killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen who was also an Al Qaeda leader, is raising multiple ethical controversies that pollute each other, making ethical coherence all but impossible.
The issues:
- The target was an American citizen. Whatever his crimes, shouldn’t he have the right to a trial before being summarily executed?
- There is no conclusive proof that he actually did anything that resulted in violence against Americans, or posed an imminent threat to national security. Was he targeted for his words, rather than his conduct? How can it be legal or ethical for the U.S. to target a citizen for death because of his political views?
- The United States has officially forsworn assassination as a military or intelligence tactic. Yet this appears to have been one.
- Yemen is not a field of combat, and there was no imminent threat to human life creating an exigency to require U.S. forces to target someone there, whether he was a citizen or not.
- Using unmanned drones in warfare is ethically troubling. Continue reading
