With protests increasing in Egypt and an all out revolt in progress, some of the big news outlets sent their own “big guns” in order to cover the story in person. Brian Williams and Lester Holt (NBC), Katie Couric (CBS), Anderson Cooper (CNN) all headed in to the heart of the matter in order to bring the story to viewers.
They were not greeted with open arms, instead they were greeted with hostility. Katie left the country soon after, the others quickly ran for cover in their hotels, covering the stories from balconies and building rooftops in safety.
The big questions are – what value is there in sending the network anchors into the heart of a massive protest? Does it make a difference if they cover the story from a rooftop in safety or from their anchor desk in safety? What kinds of big scoops to they get while being there that an already embedded reporter and camera crew can’t already get? Does their presence give those that are protesting only more attention and he sense of more power, therefore adding more fuel to the fire? Is it a coincidence that as the news anchors appeared, the protests took an even more angry turn for the worse, with so called opposition protesters coming in to stir up more trouble and venting the hostilities toward the media?
This should be a teachable moment for the networks. Keep your big salaried and probably costly to insure news anchors at home, and let the people who work the area normally cover the story. And make no mistake, stories like this are very important and must be covered. But the news anchors don’t need to be part of the story themselves. The story can still be covered thoroughly without sending high priced news anchors - who usually sit at a desk reading a teleprompter - to make the trip into the heart of trouble. The uprising in Egypt is about freedom, not about news ratings!
All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted
Check out my blog home page for the latest information, The Frequent Critic, here.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Political “Miranda” Warning: Everything You Say Can Be Used Against You
© frequentcritic.blogspot.com 
Anyone who has watched a TV crime show has heard the police or a detective read the Miranda warning to a person being arrested. The basic Miranda rights are as follows (there are some state variations):
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?
Well, maybe it’s time to have something like the Miranda warning to cover political commentary, geared to politicians, journalists, the media, bloggers, Twitter and Facebook users – well, let’s just say everybody who wants to make any public statement, political or otherwise. This warning could be something very simple, something like what I have developed here:
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you. You have the right to your own opinions, but you will be accountable for them and others have the right to disagree with you. If you understand these rights as they have been given to you, then go ahead and say or write whatever you want.
Here in the United States, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. People should not confuse this with being able to say anything one wants without consequence. I am perplexed when politicians make statements or post things on their website (or on Facebook or Twitter) and then they become upset or defensive when others hold them accountable for what they say. To rewrite a metaphor: those whose political lives live by their words and actions, their political lives can die by those same words and actions. The lesson here is that there may be times when one should just remain silent.
© frequentcritic.blogspot.com
Check out my blog home page for the latest information,
The Frequent Critic, here.
Anyone who has watched a TV crime show has heard the police or a detective read the Miranda warning to a person being arrested. The basic Miranda rights are as follows (there are some state variations):
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights as they have been read to you?
Well, maybe it’s time to have something like the Miranda warning to cover political commentary, geared to politicians, journalists, the media, bloggers, Twitter and Facebook users – well, let’s just say everybody who wants to make any public statement, political or otherwise. This warning could be something very simple, something like what I have developed here:
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you. You have the right to your own opinions, but you will be accountable for them and others have the right to disagree with you. If you understand these rights as they have been given to you, then go ahead and say or write whatever you want.
Here in the United States, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. People should not confuse this with being able to say anything one wants without consequence. I am perplexed when politicians make statements or post things on their website (or on Facebook or Twitter) and then they become upset or defensive when others hold them accountable for what they say. To rewrite a metaphor: those whose political lives live by their words and actions, their political lives can die by those same words and actions. The lesson here is that there may be times when one should just remain silent.
© frequentcritic.blogspot.com
Check out my blog home page for the latest information,
The Frequent Critic, here.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Sarah Palin’s “Target” List: Incited Murder, or Unfortunate Coincidence?
Last March, I wrote here expressing my alarm over ex-Governor (and currently holding no elected office) Sarah Palin, and her publishing of a list targeting public officials who were supporters of health care reform (see ” Domestic Terrorism: Sarah Palin Puts Democrats in the Crosshairs, Tells People to “Reload”.)The worst thing imaginable has happened. One of those people on Palin's list – Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D - AZ) – was shot in the head yesterday while making a public appearance. While she is still alive and in intensive care, others were not so lucky. Six people were also killed, including a federal judge and a 9-year-old girl, and 14 others were wounded. The “alleged” shooter – you know, the guy who had the gun and was wrestled to the ground, nothing “alleged: about that – is in custody.
As of this writing, the motivation for the shooting remains unclear. But Sarah Palin’s earlier call to arms mentioning Giffords’ name along with many others, is still is fresh in the minds of many. I believed then and I believe now that her anti-health reform rhetoric was dangerous and could be perceived as a literal call to action by those with a gun looking for an excuse to use it. If there does appear there was a connection with Palin’s call to action and this shooting, then I think there should be some way that she should be charged for something, like threatening elected officials or conspiracy to commit murder. It is simply not excusable to let anyone encourage others to shoot and/or kill in the name of their personal beliefs without paying the consequences if someone takes them up on their suggestion.
If it turns out that there was no connection with Palin’s words and the shooting and this is all a horrible and unfortunate coincidence, let this be a lesson to Palin and other big talkers who incite and rile up people for their own causes or political gains: learn to keep your mouth shut and your threats to yourself. (And for voters: don’t support or vote for people who stoop to this type of rhetoric.)
All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted
Check out my blog home page for the latest information,
The Frequent Critic, here.
Monday, December 6, 2010
WikiLeaks: Whistleblower – or Terrorist?
WikiLeaks, who recently released a tsunami of classified documents, now finds itself running for cover as it a web host shut them down and even a Swiss bank appears to have frozen WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s legal defense fund. WikiLeaks has found others to help them keep the classified information out there by the use of mirror sites.
Is this a case of a whistleblower being persecuted – or a case of a terrorist being shut off from those tools he uses to inflict harm on others? Newspapers in the past have covered controversial stories that involve classified information. The difference with the news media is that they don’t encourage the theft of classified documents in order to further their stories. In the case of WikiLeaks, it seems that Assange gets his information from documents that are not obtained legally. It seems that Assange has no concern for the fall out to military forces or the people that could be harmed by the release of government secrets.
While I would love to have a government that is completely transparent, I also live in a real world where sometimes people don’t have – or need - to know every single detail of what their government, and key elected or appointed officials, are doing
It’s important to note that Assange is also wanted to Sweden for alleged sex crimes and, as a result, has been in hiding. For someone who expects he can expose government confidential documents to make government officials look bad, as of this writing he hasn’t himself been able to step up to face the accusations being made against him. According to Time.com: "He has also said he believes that the sex-crime accusations — which, media reports in Sweden suggest, are not violent in nature — are politically motivated." The whole mess is complicated, to be sure. In my opinion, Assange is the one who looks guilty of politically motivated attacks. Let’s not forget his stunt when, in 2008 WikiLeaks posted emails that were obtained by hacking into Sarah Palin’s email account. Despite the fact that I have a low opinion of Palin, I thought that it was pretty low for WikiLeaks to publish her private email information. Now really, what value did that have? That should have been the first indication that Assange’s motives were not a squeaky clean as he may want others to think.
Right now, I’m of the opinion that Assange is more terrorist than whistleblower, more troublemaker than problem solver. Should WikiLeaks be shut down? If it is publishing documents obtained illegally and/or through espionage, yes WikiLeaks should be shut down. If Assange can uncover information using legal or ethical methods, then sure, I think he should be allowed to post whatever he wants. Somehow, I don’t think he has the ability to do the latter.
All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted
Check out my blog home page for the latest information, The Frequent Critic, here.
Is this a case of a whistleblower being persecuted – or a case of a terrorist being shut off from those tools he uses to inflict harm on others? Newspapers in the past have covered controversial stories that involve classified information. The difference with the news media is that they don’t encourage the theft of classified documents in order to further their stories. In the case of WikiLeaks, it seems that Assange gets his information from documents that are not obtained legally. It seems that Assange has no concern for the fall out to military forces or the people that could be harmed by the release of government secrets.
While I would love to have a government that is completely transparent, I also live in a real world where sometimes people don’t have – or need - to know every single detail of what their government, and key elected or appointed officials, are doing
It’s important to note that Assange is also wanted to Sweden for alleged sex crimes and, as a result, has been in hiding. For someone who expects he can expose government confidential documents to make government officials look bad, as of this writing he hasn’t himself been able to step up to face the accusations being made against him. According to Time.com: "He has also said he believes that the sex-crime accusations — which, media reports in Sweden suggest, are not violent in nature — are politically motivated." The whole mess is complicated, to be sure. In my opinion, Assange is the one who looks guilty of politically motivated attacks. Let’s not forget his stunt when, in 2008 WikiLeaks posted emails that were obtained by hacking into Sarah Palin’s email account. Despite the fact that I have a low opinion of Palin, I thought that it was pretty low for WikiLeaks to publish her private email information. Now really, what value did that have? That should have been the first indication that Assange’s motives were not a squeaky clean as he may want others to think.
Right now, I’m of the opinion that Assange is more terrorist than whistleblower, more troublemaker than problem solver. Should WikiLeaks be shut down? If it is publishing documents obtained illegally and/or through espionage, yes WikiLeaks should be shut down. If Assange can uncover information using legal or ethical methods, then sure, I think he should be allowed to post whatever he wants. Somehow, I don’t think he has the ability to do the latter.
All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted
Check out my blog home page for the latest information, The Frequent Critic, here.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Black Friday: The Real Meaning of Thanksgiving?
Photo ©frequentcritic.blogspot.com
It’s the one day that some people look forward to all year: Black Friday. It’s is not a day of mourning, it’s a day for shopping. Black Friday is the day after Thanksgiving, but got the name Black Friday because it signals the official start of the Christmas shopping season. The heavy shopping day puts many retailers “in the black” which means they are turning a profit. (“In the black” is a old phase which goes back to the days of manual financial ledgers where losses were written in red ink and profits in black ink.) Many retailers offer big sales/discounts on coveted items (like TVs or other electronics) to draw shoppers into the store. While Black Friday puts many retailers in a good place financially, it puts many consumers in deep debt.
Sadly, the spirit of the Thanksgiving holiday gets lost in the shopping frenzy. While many families still get together for a nice turkey dinner, just as many are using the day to comb through the ads to find the best deals. Quite a few people spend part of Thanksgiving standing in line, waiting for a store to open its doors in the wee hours, letting in the throngs to shop until they drop. Some stores even opened up on Thanksgiving last year. It’s pathetic that some people spend more time planning what they are going to buy than spend time on those things for which they should be thankful. Let’s not forget that because so many people are out shopping, the crowds are large, the lines are long, and tempers can be short. It’s common to hear news stories of customer vs. customer or customer vs. store clerk altercations on that shopping day. In my opinion, a person must be desperate to save a few dollars to go out and shop on a day like that.
Me? I will be staying away from the stores that day, maybe even that weekend. Instead, I will be spending my weekend being thankful for family and friends – because family and friends are far more important than things.
All Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted
Check out my blog home page for the latest information,The Frequent Critic, here.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Negative Political Ads: Working For, and Against, a Candidate
It’s that time of year – election time – when things can get ugly. The negative political ads on television and the negative political phone calls are flooding out in full force. It seems everyone complains about them, but the big question is, do they work? The answer is yes, but not always in the manner in which the advertiser wants.
In an informal survey of friends, family, and casual conversation with people I encounter in any given day, I find that many people do listen to negative ads and at least make an attempt to process whether the claims are true or false. If the person who hears the ad doesn’t like the candidate at which the negative ad is pointed, it can cement their opinion and lock in their vote for the candidate running the ad. The gain for the candidate running the ad is zero because the person was going to vote for them anyway. If the person was going to vote for the other candidate – the one at which the ad is pointed - the voter often becomes defensive of their candidate and it can lock in their vote for their candidate, a gain of zero for the candidate running the ad.
But, the person who is on the fence can go either way, and a lot of it depends on the tone or the subject of the ad. If the ad brings out any claim of impropriety in the person’s personal or business dealings (for example, claims the candidate is a tax cheat, or claims that the person has lawsuits filed against him/her), those ads often swing voters to the candidate who is running the negative ad. Pointing at an incumbent’s past record is less effective, though, because if a person had voted for that person in the past, they will likely view this as an attack on their own past choices. No one likes to think they made a bad decision, even the voter.
When both parties run negative ads, it can become sheer comedy. Frequently I see TV ads for opposing candidates run back to back, pointing at each other with negative accusations. In those cases, people only get more confused and likely don’t want to vote for either candidate, canceling out the effect of the ad.
The web site PolitiFact.com has the Truth- O-Meter which attempts to sort through some of the accusations and rates them from true, through false, to “pants on fire”, the latter highlighting the biggest lies. It’s an invaluable tool when trying to determine if the ad has merit.
The bottom line – negative ads really don’t buy a candidate many votes. Many times it serves only to entrench voters in their choices, and risks alienating voters from the whole voting process. If a candidate has to rely on slinging mud to win voters, I believe this means they don’t have much substance of their own. While I know these ads will never go away, I can only wish that more candidates would choose not to take that route. A candidate should be selling me what he or she CAN do, not what their opponent CAN’T do, or what their opponent has done. It would be nice if the “truth-o-meter” could be superimposed on the ad while it runs, but I know that will never happen. Voters must take the time to educate themselves on the issue, and the PolitiFact Truth- O-Meter is a wonderful tool (available only for a select group of states). I encourage all to use it – get the facts before acting on negative spin!
Example: Ad Attacking Lee Fisher is “Half True”
All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted
Check out my blog home page for the latest information,
The Frequent Critic, here.
In an informal survey of friends, family, and casual conversation with people I encounter in any given day, I find that many people do listen to negative ads and at least make an attempt to process whether the claims are true or false. If the person who hears the ad doesn’t like the candidate at which the negative ad is pointed, it can cement their opinion and lock in their vote for the candidate running the ad. The gain for the candidate running the ad is zero because the person was going to vote for them anyway. If the person was going to vote for the other candidate – the one at which the ad is pointed - the voter often becomes defensive of their candidate and it can lock in their vote for their candidate, a gain of zero for the candidate running the ad.
But, the person who is on the fence can go either way, and a lot of it depends on the tone or the subject of the ad. If the ad brings out any claim of impropriety in the person’s personal or business dealings (for example, claims the candidate is a tax cheat, or claims that the person has lawsuits filed against him/her), those ads often swing voters to the candidate who is running the negative ad. Pointing at an incumbent’s past record is less effective, though, because if a person had voted for that person in the past, they will likely view this as an attack on their own past choices. No one likes to think they made a bad decision, even the voter.
When both parties run negative ads, it can become sheer comedy. Frequently I see TV ads for opposing candidates run back to back, pointing at each other with negative accusations. In those cases, people only get more confused and likely don’t want to vote for either candidate, canceling out the effect of the ad.
The web site PolitiFact.com has the Truth- O-Meter which attempts to sort through some of the accusations and rates them from true, through false, to “pants on fire”, the latter highlighting the biggest lies. It’s an invaluable tool when trying to determine if the ad has merit.
The bottom line – negative ads really don’t buy a candidate many votes. Many times it serves only to entrench voters in their choices, and risks alienating voters from the whole voting process. If a candidate has to rely on slinging mud to win voters, I believe this means they don’t have much substance of their own. While I know these ads will never go away, I can only wish that more candidates would choose not to take that route. A candidate should be selling me what he or she CAN do, not what their opponent CAN’T do, or what their opponent has done. It would be nice if the “truth-o-meter” could be superimposed on the ad while it runs, but I know that will never happen. Voters must take the time to educate themselves on the issue, and the PolitiFact Truth- O-Meter is a wonderful tool (available only for a select group of states). I encourage all to use it – get the facts before acting on negative spin!
Example: Ad Attacking Lee Fisher is “Half True”
All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted
Check out my blog home page for the latest information,
The Frequent Critic, here.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Freedom of Speech/Religion Means Freedom to Make Bad Choices
I’m a little tired of hearing all the media coverage about the a pastor of a tiny church who wants to have a Qur’an (Koran) burning and the Imam who wants to build a mosque/community center near New York City’s 9/11 ground zero.
The media is making big stories out of both issues, and are likely the ones fanning the flames. Yes, the media has the freedom to cover these stories as they see fit, but, in the case of the Qur’an burning pastor, the media has now given it so much exposure that the event may endanger Americans by inciting Muslim radicals. The issue with the mosque being built near the site of the 9/11 terror attack is really a local issue that should have been resolved locally, but the media has made it a national issue.
As the media has already fanned the flames of two small “brush” fires and now have created a forest fire, the only issue left now is what freedom of speech, and freedom of religion, means.
The pastor is clearly within his right to burn whatever he wants to burn – well, as long as where he burns it, an open fire is allowed. Is it a smart thing to burn the Qur’an in protest? NO. It is a senseless act that does nothing but promote religious intolerance. How would the pastor feel if a rabbi decided to burn the New Testament of the Bible? People in the United States have the right to choose their faith (or not follow any religion) and worship without government intervention. The Qur’an has every right to be published and read in the United States, just as the Bible or any other book for that matter, religious or not.
The Imam wanting to build his mosque in New York near the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks is also within his right to do so. But, considering the sentiment of many in the city who were directly affected by the terrorist attacks, the place the Imam has chosen may not be the best. I do believe if the facility is done right, it could be a step in the healing process, but if it were me, I would not be building it in that location – it would not be worth the constant controversy.
The one lesson that we can learn here is that our freedoms sometimes come with a price. Our freedoms sometimes mean that we are free to make decisions that are not always in the best interests of those around us. It also means that the media is free to cover issues that frankly don’t affect most people. As people sometimes don’t always learn even after repeating mistakes, I don’t think these current situations mean the end to this lesson
All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted
Check out my blog home page for the latest information, The Frequent Critic, here.
The media is making big stories out of both issues, and are likely the ones fanning the flames. Yes, the media has the freedom to cover these stories as they see fit, but, in the case of the Qur’an burning pastor, the media has now given it so much exposure that the event may endanger Americans by inciting Muslim radicals. The issue with the mosque being built near the site of the 9/11 terror attack is really a local issue that should have been resolved locally, but the media has made it a national issue.
As the media has already fanned the flames of two small “brush” fires and now have created a forest fire, the only issue left now is what freedom of speech, and freedom of religion, means.
The pastor is clearly within his right to burn whatever he wants to burn – well, as long as where he burns it, an open fire is allowed. Is it a smart thing to burn the Qur’an in protest? NO. It is a senseless act that does nothing but promote religious intolerance. How would the pastor feel if a rabbi decided to burn the New Testament of the Bible? People in the United States have the right to choose their faith (or not follow any religion) and worship without government intervention. The Qur’an has every right to be published and read in the United States, just as the Bible or any other book for that matter, religious or not.
The Imam wanting to build his mosque in New York near the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks is also within his right to do so. But, considering the sentiment of many in the city who were directly affected by the terrorist attacks, the place the Imam has chosen may not be the best. I do believe if the facility is done right, it could be a step in the healing process, but if it were me, I would not be building it in that location – it would not be worth the constant controversy.
The one lesson that we can learn here is that our freedoms sometimes come with a price. Our freedoms sometimes mean that we are free to make decisions that are not always in the best interests of those around us. It also means that the media is free to cover issues that frankly don’t affect most people. As people sometimes don’t always learn even after repeating mistakes, I don’t think these current situations mean the end to this lesson
All Original Text Content © frequentcritic.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted
Check out my blog home page for the latest information, The Frequent Critic, here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)