Should Journalists have any ethics at all?
My heart goes out to the victims of the blasts in Turkey. You have my condolences. I wish there was something more meaningful I could say, but there really isn't. I just hope that this means that more people will be committed to fighting back against those who would perpetrate such heinous acts.
LILEKS, today, makes an excellent point.
You know what? Michael Moore is right. There are many Americans who are ignorant of the world around them. And they’re all TV news producers. Two big bombs in Istanbul, and what’s the big story of the day? Following around a pervy slab of albino Play-Doh as he turns himself into the police. I was stunned to discover last night that Nightline not only covered the Jackson case in detail, but bumped coverage of the Whitehall speech, which was the most important speech since the Iraq campaign began and arguably the most important speech of the war, period.
I don't own a TV (Note: not for any pretious reasons like that I feel like killing it or that it rots your brain or anything like that, but rather, because I'd watch it if I had it, and there's so much else to do with what little free time my job affords me) but those that do have been speaking about a few things lately:
1) Laci Peterson;
2) Whacko Jacko;and
3) Michael Skakel.
Nothing is wrong, per se, with some media focus on these human interest stories.
But on the same day as a major attack on one of our allies? (That'd be Turkey) On the day after George Bush gives what, if he had any moral authority at all (Hat Tip: T. Friedman) would be one of the most important speeches of the last 50 years. I read the speech. I want his speechwriter. It's exactly the sort of thing I wanted to hear. Sadly, it was made by the wrong guy (Bush) and so most of the world will ignore it and revile it.
As Friedman pointed out yesterday: Tom Malinowski, from Human Rights Watch, perfectly described Mr. Bush's core problem: When you look at the muted reaction to the president's important speech on the need for democracy in the Arab world, you see that "President Bush has moral clarity, but no moral authority." He has a vision — without influence among the partners needed to get it moving. His is a beautifully carved table — with only one leg.
It's tragic, since, if you read his speech dispassionately (pretend, for example, that I gave it rather than him) it's impressive. No more coddling dictators. A repudiation of American tactics during the cold war. He actaully came out nd said that there was a rising tide of anti-semitism that is very dangerous and worrisome (and if you don't believe that, I've got links on links on links for you).
Why are journalists focusing on those things which don't matter? They did it during the Clinton administration, too. Gerald Posner:
A country in the U.S. that was more interested in OJ Simpson and Jon Benet than in the trial of the blind Sheik Rahman and his fellow terrorists for trying to blow up NY city landmarks and bridges. We slept as a nation from the Reagan years when he withdrew from Lebanon after the Marine barracks truck bombing to the Clinton years when we pulled out of Somalia after the downing of a Blackhawk down to the Bush the Younger administration when we thought we had the luxury of time in dealing with fundamentalism.
Why is the media focusing on stupid little crap like whether or not Jacko touches little boys (is there any doubt?) whether Laci Peterson was killed by her husband (is there any doubt?) whether Michael Skakel killed Martha Moxley or if one of Kobe Bryant's relatives has information suggesting he didn't (are you fucking kidding me?) or whether Napster can make a comeback in the world of RIAA anger and Apple's Music Store? Whether Kobe raped that girl (ok, there's doubt about that one) is less important, in my mind, than the story of what's happening on the ground in Iraq, how we're screwing up Afghanistan, Al Qaeda attacks in Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Jordan, government malfeasance in Latin America, China's moon shot, our failed drug war, you name it. Yes, all of the above alleged criminals deserve a fair and impartial trial (which, of course, is extremely difficult to get based on the media circus). And they're all innocent until proven guilty. But must we know, every day, what Scott Peterson had for breakfast?
"Yes, Jim, I believe that Scott Peterson actually spoke to his attorney, and wait, wait, I'm getting a message here in my ear piece that apparently Riyadh is suffering from yet another rash of suicide bombings. Did you know that Scott Peterson prefers Cornflakes to Rice Krispies? When asked about this, he actually flipped this reporter off. Back to you Jim."
Now don't get me wrong - it's great discussion fodder when you're at a party.
"Oh my god, did you hear that Kobe Bryant's First Cousin heard that some guy in the Bronx admitted to killing that girl, and the Kennedy's are the ones who brought the alleged rape victim to light to pressure Kobe's cousin into revealing that information?"
But seriously, folks, is this shit front page news? We're talking about the renovation of a civilization on one side of the globe, huge protests in Miami, floods in Baltimore, massive protests against the American President by citizens of his erstwhile ally, and the whole time, it's all Kobe and Laci and Kobe again and Jacko. I expect this on CourtTV. I don't expect it in print media. Or on CNN even.
Journalists are supposed to be the fourth estate. They're supposed to watch those in power, to investigate, to break things like Watergate. They're not supposed to sit, fifty in a pack, at Kobe's trial, waiting for the judge to grant a continuance. What the hell is wrong with the American people that we give better ratings to that dreck than to what's happening in our world?
(And Michele comments on Lileks' comment about Salam's snarkiness, which I leave for you to click through to...)
Posted by Swerdloff at November 21, 2003 09:02 AM
