I just listened to a CNN host chastise Americans for their relatively low voting percentage (less than 50%), and then urge “everybody” to vote–“Men and women have died for your right to vote!” he said. “Democrat, Republican, Independent or undecided–go to the polls and vote!”
Inspiring. And wrong. Continue reading
CNN promptly fired “Rick’s List” host Rick Sanchez after a bizarre satellite radio rant in which he accused “The Daily Show” host John Stewart of being a “bigot” (presumably because he often picks on Sanchez, who is a Cuban-American) and insinuated that both Stewart and bigwigs at CNN were not inclined to give Sanchez a fair shake because they are Jews.Of course he had to go.
The question is, how should the network have handled the firing? It opted for traditional: a straightforward statement that Sanchez wasn’t a CNN employee any more, and a gracious note of thanks and good wishes:
“Rick Sanchez is no longer with the company. We thank Rick for his years of service and we wish him well.“
Blogger Sam Rubin, however, feels that CNN “blew it.” Here is the statement Rubin feels CNN should have made, taking a stand and being aggressively critical while showing Sanchez the door: Continue reading
Eliot Spitzer, CNN commentator and New York political veteran, endorsed fellow Democrat Andrew Cuomo in his quest to be New York’s governor. Then he said:
“The problem that Andrew has is that everybody knows that behind the scenes, he is the dirtiest, nastiest political player out there, and that is his reputation from years in Washington. He had brass knuckles, and he played hardball. He has a lot of enemies out there. Nobody’s been willing to stand up to him.”
Eliot Spitzer thus officially confirms his belief that being nasty and dirty, and everything that implies (such as lack of integrity and fairness, ruthlessness, dishonesty, deceit, vindictiveness, and meanness, as well as a Machiavellian approach to governing) justifies the trust of the people of New York. Continue reading
[TV is full of reruns these days, and sometimes I am grateful for them, for it gives me a chance to see episodes of favorite shows I had missed for some reason or another. Back in early March, I posted the following essay about the origins of America’s current crisis of trust in our government, and how it might be cured by our elected leaders. Since then, the crisis has deepened, and as I was doing some routine site maintenance, I reread the post. It is still very timely (unfortunately), and since far fewer people were visiting Ethics Alarms in March, I decided to re-post it today, with just a few minor edits. I promise not to make this a habit. Still, trust is the reason why ethics is so important in America: if there is a single post of the more than 700 I have written here since October 2009 that I would like people to read, this is it.] Continue reading
It took multilateral stupidity and hypocrisy to do it, but at least the issue is out in the open. The issue is whether media companies who cover politics under the guise of being objective should be giving large campaign checks to the political parties, especially when they give more to one party than another. Does the arm’s length relationship essential to objective reporting survive six and seven-figure donations? At very least, should media companies be required to make their political contribution choices very public?
This issue was raised in the wake of the parent corporation of Fox News, News Corporation, foolishly giving a whopping $1 million to the Republican Governors Association. This over-shadowed any amount the company has contributed though its political action committee to Democratic groups or causes, so the Democratic National Committee pounced, saying snidely:
“‘Fair and Balanced’ has been rendered utterly meaningless. Any pretense that may have existed about the ties between Fox News and the Republican Party has been ripped violently away. No Republican who appears on Fox can be seen as answering to an independent press and all should appear with a disclaimer for who they truly are – the favored candidate of the corporate-friendly network. No Fox News political coverage can be seen as impartial and all of it should have a disclaimer for what it truly is – partisan propaganda.” Continue reading
I don’t know when the last time was that a news anchor slammed his own network for shoddy journalism, but Sheppard Smith did it, to Fox News, his employer, over its complicity in the Shirley Sherrod fiasco. The criticism is well deserved. Now if only Sheppard would start calling out his network regularly when they do similar things, we might have a reliable news source one of these days.
And then, maybe some anchors at CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC (no, MSNBC is beyond hope) would start doing their own policing! Imagine! Self-policing by the news media! Soon reporters will be free of bias, and stories won’t be hyped or buried according the news room’s political preferences! And there will be the dawning of a great new day in responsible journalism, where truth, not spin or entertainment value or ratings, will be the only goal! And we’ll be able to trust what we hear and read!!
Naaa.
Still, Sheppard Smith did the right thing. Good for him.
Over at Tech Crunch, founder Michael Arrington responds to the firing of Octavia Nasr and the resignation of Helen Thomas with this argument:
“I think journalists should have the right to express their opinions on the topics they cover. More importantly, I think readers have a right to know what those opinions are. Frankly, I’d like to know sooner rather than later just how insane some of these people at CNN and Fox News are. To stop them from giving me that information is just another way to lie to me.”
Arrington is right, of course. The pose that journalists are politically objective is almost always a fraud, and efforts by organizations like The Washington Post and the San Francisco Chronicle to prevent their reporters from doing things like attending political rallies for politicians they admire or expressing strong opinions on social websites have nothing to do with preserving journalistic objectivity, but rather with preserving the illusion of journalistic objectivity. “All this bullshit about objectivity in journalism is just a trick journalists use to try to gain credibility, and the public eats it up,” Arrington says.
But Arrington is also wrong. Continue reading
The Holder-Obama Justice Department’s efforts to impose racial bias on its enforcement of the voting rights laws are no longer in the shadows, protected by the “blue line” of liberal leaning news media. Finally, after a week of ignoring a story that should have been reported immediately, the media’s efforts to confine the accusations of former Justice Department Civil Rights attorney J. Christian Adams to conservative blogs and Fox began to crack. Today the New York Times and CNN reported the story, and will have a little easier time explaining away their tardiness as something other than naked political bias than the Washington Post, the major networks, and others.
But not much easier. Continue reading
The seeming inability of elected officials and politicians to deal with basic decisions involving responsibility, prudence, accountability and honesty is coming into sharp focus as yet another debate over taxpayer-funded public broadcasting on PBS and NPR gets underway.
Colorado Congressman Doug Lamborn has introduced legislation that would cut all federal funding, an estimated annual $420 million, for public radio and television as part of the necessary effort to close the nation’s more than $13 trillion debt. As one of thousands of measures that will have to be taken to stave of fiscal catastrophe in the future, the move is truly a no-brainer, an example of the standard budget-balancing strategy of eliminating the most non-essential expenses, no matter how nice it may have been to have them when resources were more plentiful. In a rational, ethical environment where politicians didn’t regard their interest group contributors as more important than the welfare of the nation as a whole, Lamborn’s proposal wouldn’t be considered controversial. The rational response from all would be, “Well, of course! That’s $420 million that can be better used.”
But no. Continue reading
Eliot Spitzer, disgraced New York Governor, law-breaking lawyer, spectacularly unfaithful husband and hypocrite for the ages, is just perfect, in CNN’s eyes, for trenchant and probing news commentary. He will be co-hosting a new talking head show on the network, partnered with conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, who as far as we know hasn’t operated any prostitution rings, not that it would matter to CNN.
Thus will the venerable cable news network adopt the strategy that has worked so well for Fox News and too many other media organizations: find infamous people who have thoroughly humiliated themselves and betrayed those who have trusted them—individuals who by all principles of justice and fairness deserve to be relegated to permanent obscurity until they have proven by hard work, good deeds and appropriate contrition, that they may again be worthy of trust—and give exposure, celebrity and employment to these anti-role models rather than to any of the large number of more deserving, talented, honest, reliable and admirable professionals who are available and capable. Continue reading
Ethics Alarms 