Journalism, Ethics and Keith Olbermann

Friday morning, POLITICO revealed that MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann was suspended after he made contributions to several Democrats running for office.

NBC has a rule against employees contributing to political campaigns, and a wide range of news organizations prohibit political contributions — considering it a breach of journalistic independence to contribute to the candidates they cover, the POLITICO article stated.

I haven’t read a lot of the opinion pieces on the Countdown host’s suspension, probably because I can predict what both sides would say.

One side would state: “This is ridiculous and he’s nothing more than an unethical journalist.”

The other side would argue this isnt a big deal. This also happens to be the side I fall on.

Matt Taibbi wrote a short piece on the suspension calling it “lunacy.”

NBC punishing Olbermann for donating to Democratic candidates is like Hugh Hefner fining the Playmate of the Year for showing ankle. It’s completely and utterly retarded, Taibbi wrote.

I have to agree it is ridiculous for NBC to have a such a policy. Don’t get me wrong, I understand why that policy is in place but it does not make any difference if that was in place or wasn’t.

If Olbermann wasn’t allowed to donate to political campaigns he would still vote for a certain candidate.

Many people have brought up that it is unethical for a journalist to donate to a campaign. Hell, one Washington, D.C. newspaper sent a memo to it’s employees that if they attended the Rally to Restore Sanity/Fear they had to remain neutral and not laugh too much. That memo is here.

Taibbi again makes a good point about the “ostensible experts” that want to scream breech of ethics.

We had a whole generation of journalists who sat by and did nothing while, for instance, George Bush led us into an idiotic war on a lie, plus thousands more who spent day after day collecting checks by covering Britney’s hair and Tiger’s text messages and other stupidities while the economy blew up and two bloody wars went on mostly unexamined… and it’s Keith Olbermann who should “pay the price” for being unethical? Because, and let me get this straight, he donated money, privately, to politicians?, Taibbi wrote.

Do not get me started on the “journalists” that cover “entertainment” news.

Here’s the bottom line in my own opinion: If you are a journalist and cannot write a story objectively then you are not a journalist. It is the basic function of a journalist to relay the information to the general public, objectively, without any spin.

If Olbermann donated money to the Jack Conway campaign and was unable to objectively vet Conway, then Olbermann has failed as a journalist. However, if Olbermann can support Conway but at the same time objectively report on Conway then where is the foul?

Election 2010

It’s the eve of the 2010 election and this post probably should have been written several weeks ago.

The months leading up to this time are always filled with ambitious future politicians vying for your vote in hopes of having a secure paycheck for the next couple of years.

Some may lie. Others will make broad promises. They always explain what they will do better than their opponent and why their opponent’s party is bad.

Far too often elections come down to Republicans v. Democrats.

There is a thought process out there that “Oh the President is a Democrat and I don’t like what’s going on in this country so I’m going to vote Republican.”

That isn’t always true.

Far too often we let the media influence our decision when it comes to whom vote for. The media is a tool that should be used to help educate ourselves on a candidate, not make our decision for us.

Do research.

If the media reports a candidate said something, look for another news outlet’s take on that and compare it. In the world we live in there is so much media spin it is hard to fight through it to find out what really happened or what someone said.

Sure it will be hard and time consuming but the hardest part of voting should not be driving to your local polling place and waiting in line.

We need to make a concerted effort to find the best candidate out there and not the best candidate for us.

Too often people vote on the basis of “What will this candidate do for me?” “How with this candidate benefit me if they are elected?”

That mentality needs to stop. We live in a country where we need to work together. We can not move forward alone, we need each other. We need a candidate that will benefit the whole.

We have the right to vote, say what you may, but that is an amazing right.

So, get out there, be informed and vote.

And this could be the resurgence of my blog.

Are we finally coming to our senses?

By now everyone has heard of the Tiger Woods “accident” and the couple that crashed Pres. Obama’s dinner.

Originally, I was going to blog about how ridiculous the coverage of the Tiger Woods story was. But I thought “Hey been there done that.” Check out the “Entertainment Media — Epic Fail” blog post.

If I were going to write about the Tiger Woods story it would have been easy. Just insert “Tiger” a couple times into the post.

Instead to make my triumphant return to the blogging community I decided to share with you two posts written by two people who “get it.” What’s it? “It” is — “Who gives a fuck who (insert famous person’s name) is (insert something ‘morally’ wrong) and why do we care?”

First I give you John Finger’s post over at Finger Food.

When I first read his post, I said “self, no need to write a post.” Finger hit the nail on the head.

Here’s a little snippet

Oh yes, ballplayers, crooners, stars, starlets, politicians and presidents went out, got into trouble and didn’t have to worry about reading about it the next day on TMZ because there was something different going on back then…

People had their own lives and didn’t need to borrow Frank Sinatra’s. They didn’t go crashing some party they weren’t invited to because that would be classless. Worse, it’s tacky.

And it’s true. Why are we so fascinated with who is banging who or who is driving drunk where?

Now I direct you to Rolling Stone national affairs correspondent Tim Dickinson and what he posted on Dec. 1

Listen: I understand that the atomization of our popular culture drives a need for “national conversation” news stories.

But Tiger Woods and the Afghanistan escalation received equal minutes on NPR this morning.

The Tiger episode epitomizes the Seinfeld ethos that has infected our 24/7 news cycle. We’re having endless national conversations about nothing.

And there you have it.

We care more about who Tiger Woods is banging then the escalating war in Afghanistan.

Ill be bold, probably a little ignorant, but say technology is to blame fore this problem.

We are a nation of convenience. Technology has made things convenient. So convenient, that we are spoon fed our news and take whatever is given to us as if it’s the word of God.

Welcome Back

Annnnnd I’m back.

After a several month long unplanned hiatus I’m hopefully back to blogging on a regular basis.

Hopefully, you’ll learn some new things, enjoy my critiques of things that annoy me and laugh a little. That being said… check out the my latest post. “Are we finally coming to our senses?”

Unacceptable

How does this this lady still have a job at the New York Times?

Apparently, Alessandra Stanley, a NYT television columnist wrote a piece about Walter Cronkite’s life. The article she wrote contained seven errors about Cronkite’s life.

As a journalist I know what it’s like to make an error in a story. It has happened to me in the past and I’m sure it will happen to me in he future. Two things made me shudder when I found out the fallacies in Stanley’s article.

The first was the “mistakes” were quite large. I’m talking wrong dates. Something that could easily be fact-checked by “googling” it.

The second thing is that apparently, Stanley is an error prone writer. 

A Columbia Journalism Review blog — Regret the Error Blog — wrote this about Stanley:

By my count in Nexis, she had fourteen corrections in 2008, twelve in 2007, and fifteen in 2006. Averaging just over a correction a month is not something to be proud of. But that’s still better than before she attracted so much attention. Stanley had twenty-three corrections in 2005, the year everyone noticed her predilection for error, and twenty-six in 2004. Perhaps the decline in corrections between 2005 and 2006 was in part due to the attention focused on her.

So, she gets a lot of things wrong. Again I’m not sure how “big” these mistakes were. For example in the Cronkite piece, Stanley misspelled a name. Hey it happens and I understand that.

But getting historical facts wrong like the date Dr. Martin Luther King was assassinated and claiming Cronkite stormed the beaches on D-Day.

Katie Couric called Stanley out on her “Notebook” which airs on CBSNews.com. I found out about this crime on the Huffington Post. You can read everything for yourself here.

Epic Fail — The (Entertainment) Media

In what could soon become a new “segment” on this very blog “Epic Fail” will critique something (industry, person, organization) that is failing to do what it is designed to do.

The first installment is The Media.

Pointing out the shortcomings and failures of The Media is a hobby of mine. And quite frankly there are so many failures with the current media that this post could turn into a book. So, instead of letting this turn into a 500,000 word blog post I’m going to focus on one group of The Media — The Entertainment Media.

When did the line between reputable news organizations and tabloid news organizations become so blurred?

When did TMZ (Thirty Mile Zone), which prides itself on “celebrity gossip, entertainment news and celebrity news” become a respectable news organization  I didn’t even realize gossip was creditable to cite as fact. God do I hate TMZ.

My outrage for the entertainment media has always been there, I guess I just don’t understand why people need to know why Brad Pitt decided to stop fucking Jennifer Aniston so he could start fucking Angelina Jolie instead.

Then while watching the Michael Jackson funeral services I had an enlightenment. People thought this guy was weird. I’m not saying he wasn’t weird and I’m not saying he was normal. But it got me thinking. Why did he act the way he did? Especially, with his children.

We’ve all see the photos of his children wearing Halloween masks, surgical masks and blankets over their heads, but why? Well, a majority of people probably would say “because he’s fucking nuts.” Well was he?

Lets think about it.

MJ was a child star. Funny thing about children who become stars in this great country. They usually end up a big mess. Usually involved with drugs, booze, sex and they blow their money. Which, hey, if I was 12 years old and banking a couple million a year I would probably be a little friviolous with my money as well. But I digress.

How big of a role does the entertainment media, well in fact the regular media too, play into the downfall of children stars? I would say a lot. Tabloid magazines offering thousands of dollars for photos of famous people?

Here’s where I believe MJ’s “craziness” factor was overrated. In my opinion he was trying to protect his children from the media i.e. the paparazzi. Look at the living hell they can put on a person’s life. How many times have we seen movie stars punch a cameraman?

Seriously, look at Britney Spears. Why do we care what she is doing? Why is it more important to criticize her for smoking around her babies than my piece of shit neighbor who does the same thing. In fact, I’m pretty sure I heard said neighbor state “I can’t believe Britney does that. What about her children’s health,” as she took a long drag off a cigarette while holding her newborn.

Now what is the new craze in America? Why is Jon Gosselin banging another woman? Ill tell you why… because Kate Gosselin is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuge bitch. If you couldn’t tell from watching the show then I’m going to punch you in the head. My God was she ever controlling.

Take a look at the coverage. It’s all about how Jon is a horrible man leaving Kate and the eight children. Horrible man? Nah. There is no doubt in my mind that he loves those kids with all of his heart, but it got a little too much with Kate “I worked at Auschwitz” Gosselin.

Again I digress, my apologies.

Maybe the Entertainment Media is to blame or maybe it’s a huge failure on society’s part. The Entertainment Meid is trying to make money and are just feeding society what they want. Then again why does society care so much about famous people’s lives instead of their own?

More importantly, why are talking heads (I’m looking at you Nancy Grace, FoxNews morning show, morning shows in general and other pundits) chastising celebrities lifestyles instead of delving into more important issues at hand. Like why do people hate America. What is really going on in the world.

Again, I can’t seem to get away from the fact that this is somehow society’s fault for wanting to hear more about the name of Tom Cruise’s and Katie Homles’s love child.

I guess it’s easy to say that the Main Stream Media could and should stop covering celebrities. But the MSM is a for-profit business. If the people want celebrities they are going to get them.

What happened to the time when the entertainment media was there to tell us about entertainment. Review of a new book, Broadway show, television series, a movie or where to go out for that special occasion.

Entertainment Media — You Fail.

Pakistan’s Problems are Far From Gone

While it may not be getting major play in the mainstream media right now, Pakistan still faces an array of challenges, even after the military has beat back the Taliban offensive. Foreign Policy Magazine has two good recent pieces on this state’s uncertain future, including:

Shuja Nawaz on the continuing battle between the government and Taliban and secessionist elements in the country:

ather than melting away, the Taliban began snatching up territory closer and closer to the Pakistani heartland, and outrage among locals and the larger Pakistani population pushed the administration and the Army to react. Their tactic of choice was a full-fledged assault. The Army now has close to 150,000 troops in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), Swat, and Malakand. In Swat alone, there are at least two full divisions from the eastern frontier and an additional four brigades cobbled together from divisions usually stationed near the Indian border. In addition, there is a full brigade of commandos in the Peochar Valley, and nine wings of the Frontier Corps. The total troop commitment in Swat is about 52,000. The military is taking losses daily. The militants, meanwhile, have taken the battle to the center of Pakistan, attacking offices of the Inter-Services Intelligence in Lahore in May and other softer targets, such as the Pearl Continental Hotel in Peshawar last week.

And Samina Ahmed on Pakistan’s internally displaced people (IDP) problem:

The IDP situation matters for more than its very real status as a humanitarian crisis. Between 80 and 90 percent of the IDPs are not in the camps; they are bunking with overstretched relatives and friends who receive no outside aid whatsoever. If the international community responds to their needs, these IDPs could present a potentially powerful constituency of civil opposition to extremism. They fled their homes because they reject the militants’ worldview. If and when peace returns, they, as a resident living in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas told Crisis Group, will be the robust civil society that is so badly needed in the conflict zones.

Sarah Palin’s horrible basketball analogy

Since the moment Sarah Palin first graced my television set it has been readily apparent that the woman had little grasp, knowledge or even interest in basic international affairs, domestic issues or the workings of government in general. But who knew that this former high school basketball player was ignorant about basketball as well?

This reality came to me during Palin’s most recent speech, wherein she said she would not seek a second term as governor of Alaska (very sad, I know). During this speech she said the following:

Let me go back to a comfortable analogy for me – sports… basketball. I use it because you’re naive if you don’t see the national full-court press picking away right now: A good point guard drives through a full court press, protecting the ball, keeping her eye on the basket… and she knows exactly when to pass the ball so that the team can WIN. And I’m doing that – keeping our eye on the ball that represents sound priorities – smaller government, energy independence, national security, freedom! And I know when it’s time to pass the ball – for victory.

Now as someone who eats, drinks and breaths basketball, one of my biggest pet peeves is when the game is somehow desecrated (yeah I know this is subjective but I really like basketball). Whenever I see a movie or TV show with a basketball scene that’s not true to the game, with obviously shitty players hitting ugly jumpers and dribbling around nonexistent defenses, I flip. And this awful basketball analogy is no different.

So let me rant on this…

First of all, a good point guard does not “drive through a full court press.” Full court presses are not beaten by one player dribbling through them. They’re beaten with ball movement, passes from the sides to the middle of the court. A shitty point guard will try to dribble through a press and usually end up getting trapped and turning the ball over (unless the press is really, really badly executed…and I mean bad).

A weak man press can sometimes be beat by the dribble. If a good ball handler gets inbounded the ball, the rest of the team can clear out (bringing their defenders with them) to the other side of the court, essentially taking the press with them. But this rarely happens in good man presses. Good coaches usually keep one more player in the backcourt (who does not follow his man who clears out). This freelance defender then helps trap the ballhandler. Thus, the best way, again, to beat this press is through quick ball movement (passing) down the floor.

And then Palin says a good point guard keeps her eye on the basket during a full court press. Actually, a good point guard keeps her eye on where her teammates are and where the openings are on the press. It’s not like you’re going to nail a cross court shot during a full court press. Why would you keep your eye on the basket?

But wait, then the female Forrest Gump says “and I’m doing that – keeping our eye on the ball that represents sound priorities – smaller government, energy independence, national security, freedom!” Keeping our eye on the ball? A point guard should never keep their eye on the ball. They should keep their head up and eyes active. Oh god, I’ll stop already.

Palin you ruin everything. Now basketball?! Ah!

Thus ends my basketball rant.

Hitchens and the Burka

Christopher Hitchens is at it again–allowing his hatred of religion to cloud his judgment and contradict basic liberal principles. In almost all of his books, columns and media appearances, Hitchens claims to hold dear the liberal principles of the Enlightenment–individual liberty, limited government, etc.

Yet, in a recent column in the New York Daily News, Hitchens comes out in support of France’s flirtation with banning the wearing of burkas in public schools:

But that observation – if you will excuse the expression – brings us to another and even more powerful objection to this mode of dress. It is quite plainly designed by men for the subjugation of women. One cannot be absolutely sure that no woman has ever donned it voluntarily, but one can certainly say that, in countries where women can choose not to wear it, then not wearing it is the choice they generally make.

This disposes right away of the phony argument that religious attire is worn as a matter of “right.” It is almost exactly the other way around: The imposition of burkas or even head scarfs on women – just like the compulsory growing of beards for men – is the symbol of a denial of rights and the inflicting of a tyrannical code that obliterates personal liberty.

Now I agree that the burka has often been a tool to subjugate women, something that has been forced upon them. And thus I find repulsive governments that make the wearing of the burka mandatory. However, it would be equally wrong to prevent women from choosing to wear the thing. And I don’t understand why anyone would choose to do so, but some people do. What right does the government have to invalidate and infringe upon this choice?

Hitchens argues:

Think of the things that we all have to do now, like submitting to humiliating searches at airports, or showing our ID to people who have no “probable cause” for demanding it. Can we turn up at airport security wearing a bag over our heads? Can we produce a photograph that shows only our eyes through a slit? Of course not. Nor can anyone in a Muslim country (though of course in Saudi Arabia an unchaperoned women cannot turn up at the airport anyway).

Yes Hitch, often times security and individual liberty conflict with each other and a choice must be made for security in place of individual liberty. But I fail to see how school girls wearing burkas directly and negatively affects anyone’s security.

Welcome…..

I would like to officially welcome Bill Rice to The Long Road staff.

Bill, who hails from the City of Brotherly Love,  holds a degree in Political Science and Historical Communitcations from Lebanon Valley Collge and is currently attending American University where is he working on a degree in International Peace and Conflict Resolution. What does this mean? It means he’s smart and will probably be adding the intelligent, in depth posts while I will have the more off the cuff, rant filled posts.

I met Bill during my years at LVC where our friendship blossomed once they discovered we had the same sense of humor.

Nurturing our friendship with love and episodes of Seinfeld, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Monty Python, anything with sarcasm and really, horrible, awful, bad movies; we set out on a campaign to conquer ignorance.

We started our quest by publishing a bi-monthly news letter, briefing readers on “underreported” world, national and local news. Needless to say the publication failed due to a lack of writers.

Not to be deterred by this failure we  sought to be world changing journalists. However, once again, we had trouble making it past the entry level weekly newspapers where our editors were either stupid or just did not care about responsible journalism.

Anyways, enjoy Bill, his writing, his sense of humor and views on world events.

And just for shit and giggles.