Res ipsa loquitur!
From Pro Football: A Life Competence Lesson On The Perils Of Grandstanding
Res ipsa loquitur!
Unethical Quote Of The Day: Wesley Lowery In “The Columbia Journalism Review”
“We pull no punches: when the weight of the objective evidence is clear, we must not conceal the truth through euphemism; rather, we should employ direct language. Our aim is not to be perceived as impartial by the people we imagine are our readers, but to accurately inform them about the world they live in.”
—-Reporter Wesley Lowery, Journalist in Residence at the Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism at CUNY, in his essay, “A Test of the News”
When I encountered the essay titled “A Test of the News” in the Columbia Journalism Review, I foolishly anticipated a careful diagnostic analysis of why American journalism was so ethically wretched, and a perceptive prescription for fixing the problem. Boy, do I have a flat learning curve. Why would I ever think that, knowing what I, what you, what anyone who has been paying attention knows from observing the carnage unethical, incompetent, biased journalism has inflicted on American democracy over the past decade? My delusion was especially unforgivable since 1) Lowery is a journalist, 2) he’s a Pulitzer Prize -winning journalist, and you know what kind of journalists the Pulitzers like, and 3) he’s also an college instructor. Education is running neck and neck with journalism as our most thoroughly unethical profession, though journalism is clearly the one most likely beyond repair.
The first three paragraphs of Lowery’s screed were bad enough, but I didn’t reach the point where I normally would have stopped reading until paragraph #4:
“To this day, news organizations across the country often rely on euphemisms instead of clarity in clear cases of racism (“racially charged,” “racially tinged”) and acts of government violence (“officer-involved shooting”). Such decisions, I wrote, are journalistic failings, but also moral ones: when the weight of the evidence is clear, it is wrong to conceal the truth. Justified as “objectivity,” they are in fact its distortion.”
When a police officer shoots an arrested suspect who tries to take his gun from him and then charges him with his 300 pound bulk, that is “government violence, “and the “weight of evidence is clear”—you know, as in “Hands up, don’t shoot!” That recycled Black Lives Matters mythology pretty much reveals all I need to know about Wesley Lowery, and he confirms my conclusion with the egomaniacal quote at the beginning of this post. He believes, as do so many editors and reporters echoing the same arrogant delusion, that journalists, narrow as their education and experience is, are capable of explaining to the public the true nature of the world they live in. This means the world view journalists want them to live in. Yet reporters do not know when the “weight of objective evidence is clear”; they don’t have the depth, wisdom or intellect to know what the “truth” is (don’t make me list examples again), and what ideological propagandists like Lowery call “accurate” includes shading, spin, soaked with bias, and the strategic omission of facts that undermine their narratives. The delusion is that having an outsized bullhorn automatically confers the ability to use it responsibly.
Who Do You Trust, CNN Or Don Lemon? (Hint: It’s A Trick Question)
Here is how Don Lemon announced his firing from CNN on Twitter…
Here was CNN’s response:
Lemon is an incorrigibly unprofessional and biased pseudo-journalist who has one of the most damning and extensive Ethics Alarms dossiers extant. he’s thrown tantrums, made up fake history, lied, peddled fake news and appeared drunk on the air. I think my favorite inexcusable babbling self-indulgence by Don was this, but I easily could have missed one, or dozens. Anyone that believes anything Don Lemon says, writes, publishes or tweets is dangerously gullible.
CNN, meanwhile, kept Lemon on the air in a high-profile, prime-time slot despite his lack of integrity and journalism competence, because it viewed him as an attractive messenger for its steady diet of biased, slanted and occasionally fabricated news stories serving its management’s partisan objectives. CNN is a little less trustworthy than Fox News, and a little more trustworthy than MSNBC, or, to be brief, completely untrustworthy.
The answer to the question posed in the headline is “Neither.”
I THOUGHT This Issue Would Eventually End Up At The Supreme Court, And Here It Is!
A federal appeals court in New York ruled in 2019 that President Trump’s Twitter account was a public forum from which he was powerless to exclude people based on their viewpoints. Judge Barrington D. Parker Jr. wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel of \ the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, “We conclude that the evidence of the official nature of the account is overwhelming…We also conclude that once the president has chosen a platform and opened up its interactive space to millions of users and participants, he may not selectively exclude those whose views he disagrees with.”
I wondered at the time if the ruling was a by-product of anti-Trump mania, and I still wonder if the same ruling would have been made had the sensitive official tweeter been Barack Obama. I confess to being torn on both the ethics and the law regarding the matter.
The Tucker Carlson Firing Aftermath
Tucker Carlson behaved in a manner that would get any employee fired from any organization with two atoms of integrity and professionalism to rub together unless the organization was completely in thrall to The King’s Pass. It is really as simple as that; this isn’t hard. Nevertheless, pundits, politicians and hack journalists on both sides of the ideological divide set out to misrepresent the event in order to promote their own world views, confusing the American public when they should be illuminating a basic ethics and life competence issue.
Let’s see...why not start with one of the biggest hacks out there, CNN’s former fake journalism ethics watchdog and veteran Fox News-a-phobe, Brian Stelter? “Why Tucker Carlson’s Exit From Fox News Looks Like an Execution” is the title of his analysis in “Vanity Fair,” itself now a nest of progressive propaganda merchants (but Stelter lowers the net ethics quotient anyway). The answer to Stelter’s question is, he offers, this: “He’s not being given a chance to say goodbye. It is technically possible, I suppose, that Carlson turned down a chance to sign off on his own terms. But my 20 years of experience covering cable news suggests otherwise.”
Wow. This guy is really something. Completely inept and intellectually dishonest, Stelter has to begin an article by reminding readers how special he is. Of course Carlson wasn’t given a chance to give a last broadcast. He was fired for cause. When you are fired for cause, security ushers you out of the building. Your bosses don’t give you anything but a severance package—maybe—and ten minutes to put your stuff in a cardboard box. Allowing a likely bitter and angry demagogue like Carlson to “say good bye” is like the Charles Addams cartoon where a guy arrested for making obscene phone calls is allowed to make his one call and he makes another obscene one. What Fox did with Carlson wasn’t “an execution.” It was a standard firing.
Over at the New Republic, long-time leftist hysteric Michael Tomasky (whose biased news analysis helped drive me away from The Daily Beast) writes in “Why Fox News Is Going to Get Worse—a Lot Worse” that Carlson is certain to be replaced by someone who is “more trolly, more racist, more pro-Putin, and just all-around more outrageous than Carlson.” Tomasky is just using Carlson’s demise as an excuse to attack Fox News when it has done the right and responsible thing for once, and at significant cost: its value dipped a billion dollars on the news of the firing. In the process, he repeats the Big Lies that the Left wielded against Carlson in its efforts to silence him, because censoring opposition is how Big Blue rolls these days; it’s so much more effective than trying to win a debate with facts and logic.
Carlson’s not “racist,” but the playbook demands that anyone who questions color-based, George Floyd Freakout policies must be a racist. Tucker’s not “pro-Putin,” he’s anti-US involvement in the Russia-Ukraine war, a defensible position. Carlson, moreover, was far less outrageous than the jerk he replaced, Bill O’Reilly, so why does Tomasky assume Carlson’s replacement will be worse than he was?
“Blue Bloods” Jumps The Ethics Shark
I can’t be too hard on “Blue Bloods.”
The CBS series is an amazing phenomenon, surviving for 13 seasons (it’s been renewed for 14th) in the teeth of an anti-police, anti-law and order, anti-traditional family, anti-American political and cultural upheaval. The Tom Selleck-starring vehicle—Selleck himself is a member of the NRA board of directors–follows the adventures and careers of the devout, white, Irish Catholic Reagan family that considers New York law enforcement the “family business.” Frank (Selleck) is the Police Commissioner, Granddad was too, one son is a Manhattan police detective and the other a police sergeant whose wife is a patrolwoman. Erin, the sole daughter, is Manhattan ADA, and this season is running for District Attorney. Every Sunday the whole family gathers for dinner, and prays. There are no LGTBQ members of the Reagan family, and, so far, no bi-racial marriages.*
Back when I compiled detailed year-end awards, “Blue Bloods” was a repeat winner of the coveted “Most Ethical TV Series.” It regularly has examined complex ethics dilemmas in the work place, law and family settings, while dealing with the most extensive interlocking conflicts of interest imaginable, usually competently.
Maybe Selleck, who is reportedly retiring from the show after this season and is an executive producer, is just tired of fighting.
Ethics Hero: Fox News
Now THERE’s something I never thought I’d put in a headline…
“FOX News Media and Tucker Carlson have agreed to part ways,” Fox News announced today in a statement. “We thank him for this service to the network as a host and prior to that as a contributor.”
Good.
There will be a lot of cheering from those on the political left who wanted to censor Tucker, but he brought this upon himself, and in fact the move was late in coming. Carlson’s was the network’s most-watched prime-time show, and the most popular and profitable news commentary TV show on cable. In 2022, “Tucker Carlson Tonight” averaged 3.32 million total viewers and received the largest audience with the golden 25-to-54 age demographic. But as Ethics Alarms has pointed out repeatedly, he is an ethics corrupter on the national scene, and the evidence in the Dominion defamation law suit that Fox just settled for three-quarters of a billion dollars proved that he couldn’t even be trusted to tell viewers what his real opinions were.
Oh-Oh, Now I’m Really In Trouble: Democrats Want To Criminalize Typos
Somehow I missed this, but it does fit in nicely with the previous post on the totalitarian drift of our oldest political party.
Stacey Plaskett, a non-voting Democrat Representative of the Virgin Islands, the ranking member of the House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government, authored a letter that accused journalist Matt Taibbi of perjury in his testimony before Congress on the flimsiest of pretexts. In one “Twitter Files’ tweet and in his subsequent Congressional testimony, Taibbi, suddenly a villain in Democratic eyes because he was one of the independent reporters given access to “the Twitter files” for public release purposes, had mistakenly confused CISA, the government’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, with CIS, the Center for Internet Security, a non-profit private entity. Or he had added an “A’ by mistake, which is what I would have done. Taibbi corrected the tweet, but Plaskett accused him of deliberate dishonesty in his testimony that quoted it, writing,
No Primary Debates? The Democratic Party Looks More Soviet By The Hour…[Corrected]
Nicely anticipating what he would be up against—perhaps because it’s so obvious from the recent Presidential election cycles—Robert Kennedy, Jr talked about totalitarianism in a recent interview. “It’s been the dream ambition of every totalitarian regime in the history of mankind to exert total control over every aspect of human behavior,” he said, noting that technology makes this ambition easier than ever to achieve. Junior RFK is the most interesting and potentially the most disruptive of the Democrats planning to challenge Joe Biden for the 2024 Presidential election, but at the time he may not have anticipated his party’s plan to eliminate him and anyone else as serious competition. The Washington Post reported last week that “the national Democratic Party has said it will support Biden’s reelection, and it has no plans to sponsor primary debates.”
A “Bias Makes You Stupid” Classic: Duke’s Economically Ignorant Economics Prof.
Duke University professor of economics William Darity wants $14 trillion in reparations to be paid to African Americans. That would roughly break down to $350,000 per recipient. True, he was blathering on the “Dr. Phil” show, and perhaps thought nobody with more than a GED would be watching. Nonetheless he said, for public consumption, that trillions in financial reparations should be handed out to “reduce the wealth gap” between white and black Americans. Where will all that money come from, the phony TV doctor asked? Oh, from the Federal government, which will apparently make it magically appear, replied the evidently phony economist. Will a $350,000 windfall be enough to do any lasting good for the vast majority of blacks who would receive it? Oh, probably not, but it will feel good.
Or something. California’s task force on imaginary reparations things they should be at least $5 million per eligible resident. Sure, why not? Why not $10 million?
In the past, the professor has estimated that reparations would cost between $10 and $12 trillion. Of course, those figures are also impossible and ridiculous, so we need not make too big a thing out of his latest demand.
The National Debt, even the most woke and irresponsible economists will admit if you back them against a wall, is getting, indeed is, dangerously large already at about $32 trillion. Increasing it by 40% in a short period of time is a recipe for economic disaster that would adversely affect all races and creeds.
One doesn’t even need to get into the absurd practical, social, political and legal impediments to such a mass transfer of wealth, which would be enough to make such Darity’s reparations plan madness even if it were affordable, which it is not now and never will be. The ethics question is: How can Duke responsibly employ a professor who advocates such reckless economic policy? What can students learn from this man, who places his race and political biases ahead of his scholarship?
Ethics Alarms 