Monday, March 29, 2004
Can You Find the Source and the Purpose of a Dead Woman's Teat?
This is an Election Year. Journalists all over America are chomping at the bits. Politicians are poised and ready to pose.
So why would anyone read anything without deleting all adjectives and adverbs, and why oh why would anyone believe anything to be true without considering two things: The Source of the actual statements, and The Purpose behind the statements?
Here are some recent examples of our "News" professionals.
Tuesday, March 23. Terrorist Hearings produced many diverse witnesses that claimed the 9/11 attacks were not preventable under our nation's standard operating procedures and were not the fault of current administration. Headlines from Detroit Free Press "Anti-terror Plan a Failure" and the Macomb Daily "Security under Scrutiny." Please note the Passive Sentences used.
Wednesday, March 24. Terrorist Hearings with featured witness Richard Clarke (author of a newly released Bush-slamming book, now for sale at your local bookstore) gave us these headlines: The Detroit Free Press "Terror Testimony TAKES AIM at Bush", or Macomb Daily "Clarke says Bush IGNORED TERRORISM." Takes aim? Ignored Terrorism? Not so passive, anymore. These look like action verbs don't they?
My national "News" Magazine, March 15th Newsweek "The CONTROVERSY over President George W. Bush's new TV ads featuring FAKE FIREFIGHTERS and FLEETING images of the 9/11 attacks THREW campaign officials on the DEFENSIVE -- and raised questions about the Bush team's ability to EFFECTIVELY spend its MASSIVE $150 Million WAR CHEST, some GOP INSIDERS SAY..." As usual, they don't tell us who the GOP insiders are (I always think if they can't tell me who the speaker is, it must be the janitor) - and note the purposeful lie: SOME GOP INSIDERS SAY, after all those adjectives and action verbs. The following week, in a 1 paragraph "correction" just after letters to the editor, Newsweek "regretted" (not apologized) for relying on information supplied by a member of the campaign's media team (Note: "a" as in ONE! -- not the 3 sources we came to expect from the Washington's Post Watergate investigations, and not the INSIDERS --plural, and, again, who? The janitor? Why is this a protected source? He's not a whistle blower, he is talking about the making of an campaign advertisement, for goodness sake.)
Speaking of Newsweek, did you check out the March 22, 2004 issue, especially the double trunk photo on pages 26 & 27? As part of their report on the 3/11 terrorist attack of commuter trains in Madrid, Spain, they demonstrate the current mentality of today's journalists. The first word on the page is "INCOMPREHENSIBLE". I agree. Why would you feature center stage a poor dead (or dying) young woman -- someone's daughter, someone's mother, someone's friend, someone's sister? Why? From the thousands of photos to choose from? Oh -- right. The naked tit. Yes, tit. Of course. Find a dead or dying young woman whose bodice has been ripped open from a horrific blast; show her entire left breast exposed, bloody nipple and all. That is the quality of today's journalists. Why is no one offended? Where is the FCC? Still looking at Janet Jackson's Nipple instead?
Last fall, my sister said that during the presidency of George W Bush, more jobs have been lost then during any other time in this century. At first, I said it was totally impossible, things could not possibly be worse then they were during the Great Depression. Then, it occurred to me, we were only in the third year of this century -- and so stated. She said, oh, no, she meant in the last 100 years. I said I didn't believe it. She said statistics don't lie, She has heard the reports on the news. I think she wondered who I thought I was to not believe a radio reporter. And I think I thought statistics can and are manipulated for the purpose of the speaker. But she said, I said, she said, I said.
Next time we talked, she asked if I was willing to concede that 2,000,000 jobs have been lost since George W Bush took office, and it was the worst job loss in 70 years (notice she changed it). Then I said, she said, I said, she said.
So I went to the source of such figures, the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. It was true, in a 30-month period, 2.2 million workers lost their jobs, actually .79 percent (point seven nine percent) of the total labor population.
But I also noticed in a couple rows above...
In the early 1980's 2.8 million workers lost jobs, and that was 1.24 percent (one point two four, almost twice as much) of the total labor population lost jobs.
The press is claiming more jobs have been lost under the current president then have been lost in a century??? I could not find out how many lost jobs during the Great Depression, but according to Britannica, it was 25%-30% of the labor force.
I emailed the info to my sister who emailed back that she was quoting Greenspan in a CBS Jan 26th report. Unfortunately, CBS was not quoting Alan Greenspan. As is the common practice of today, very few quotes are used. Instead, the article said things like "Greenspan sought to address fears that many of the 2.8 million manufacturing jobs lost..." But wait. Who said he was addressing fears, or that those were the fears he was addressing? It's from nothing Greenspan stated, obviously, or they would have quoted him. Another CBS report on February 13th gives Hillary Clinton credit for the same type remarks, actually they claimed she chided Bush (well, gee, I have to admit I believe she probably did chide Bush) noting 2.9 million jobs were lost, including 2.8 million manufacturing jobs. But again, no quotes. We don't know what she really said. We don't know where she got her figures. All we know is that the writer of the report has decided to make this a campaign issue.
Modern journalists today are allowed to print anything, especially if they are just regurgitating what another journalist said or printed. No accountability.
How many times are we going to hear phrases like "As reported in a story from the Washington Post" or "As reported from a source at the White House". We either need to demand honesty and ethics and unbiased news from all our journalists, or we need to rid ourselves of "Freedom of the Press" because right now, the press has absolutely no accountability. It lies, it cheats, it destroys politicians, and it can be bought. In fact, there are almost no news sources today that are not profit driven. And the alternative news sources were created for the purpose of responding with Extreme Bias -- it is their mission.
There is no incentive for journalists to work hard, no incentive for them to verify information. If it is a story slanted to their personal beliefs -- oh well -- they are just quoting. What happened to my Editor back in the '70's who considered wire services as story leads only (not stories to be published), who said "If it is important enough to print, it is important enough to assign a reporter."
And when did all these adjectives and adverbs take up residence in our news? I don't care if the flagrantly unremorseful Mr. Story went up the steep, wide, cold marble stairs hastily with a murderous grin on his ashen face, as he arrogantly submitted his disdainful resignation; all I want to know is that he went up the stairs, and submitted his resignation.
That is news. Just the facts. All the rest is editorializing, and belongs in the back of section A. Not in published-as-gospel AP stories, not in the ticker at the bottom of the news channels, not on the front page.
This is an Election Year. Journalists all over America are chomping at the bits. Politicians are poised and ready to pose.
So why would anyone read anything without deleting all adjectives and adverbs, and why oh why would anyone believe anything to be true without considering two things: The Source of the actual statements, and The Purpose behind the statements?
Here are some recent examples of our "News" professionals.
Tuesday, March 23. Terrorist Hearings produced many diverse witnesses that claimed the 9/11 attacks were not preventable under our nation's standard operating procedures and were not the fault of current administration. Headlines from Detroit Free Press "Anti-terror Plan a Failure" and the Macomb Daily "Security under Scrutiny." Please note the Passive Sentences used.
Wednesday, March 24. Terrorist Hearings with featured witness Richard Clarke (author of a newly released Bush-slamming book, now for sale at your local bookstore) gave us these headlines: The Detroit Free Press "Terror Testimony TAKES AIM at Bush", or Macomb Daily "Clarke says Bush IGNORED TERRORISM." Takes aim? Ignored Terrorism? Not so passive, anymore. These look like action verbs don't they?
My national "News" Magazine, March 15th Newsweek "The CONTROVERSY over President George W. Bush's new TV ads featuring FAKE FIREFIGHTERS and FLEETING images of the 9/11 attacks THREW campaign officials on the DEFENSIVE -- and raised questions about the Bush team's ability to EFFECTIVELY spend its MASSIVE $150 Million WAR CHEST, some GOP INSIDERS SAY..." As usual, they don't tell us who the GOP insiders are (I always think if they can't tell me who the speaker is, it must be the janitor) - and note the purposeful lie: SOME GOP INSIDERS SAY, after all those adjectives and action verbs. The following week, in a 1 paragraph "correction" just after letters to the editor, Newsweek "regretted" (not apologized) for relying on information supplied by a member of the campaign's media team (Note: "a" as in ONE! -- not the 3 sources we came to expect from the Washington's Post Watergate investigations, and not the INSIDERS --plural, and, again, who? The janitor? Why is this a protected source? He's not a whistle blower, he is talking about the making of an campaign advertisement, for goodness sake.)
Speaking of Newsweek, did you check out the March 22, 2004 issue, especially the double trunk photo on pages 26 & 27? As part of their report on the 3/11 terrorist attack of commuter trains in Madrid, Spain, they demonstrate the current mentality of today's journalists. The first word on the page is "INCOMPREHENSIBLE". I agree. Why would you feature center stage a poor dead (or dying) young woman -- someone's daughter, someone's mother, someone's friend, someone's sister? Why? From the thousands of photos to choose from? Oh -- right. The naked tit. Yes, tit. Of course. Find a dead or dying young woman whose bodice has been ripped open from a horrific blast; show her entire left breast exposed, bloody nipple and all. That is the quality of today's journalists. Why is no one offended? Where is the FCC? Still looking at Janet Jackson's Nipple instead?
Last fall, my sister said that during the presidency of George W Bush, more jobs have been lost then during any other time in this century. At first, I said it was totally impossible, things could not possibly be worse then they were during the Great Depression. Then, it occurred to me, we were only in the third year of this century -- and so stated. She said, oh, no, she meant in the last 100 years. I said I didn't believe it. She said statistics don't lie, She has heard the reports on the news. I think she wondered who I thought I was to not believe a radio reporter. And I think I thought statistics can and are manipulated for the purpose of the speaker. But she said, I said, she said, I said.
Next time we talked, she asked if I was willing to concede that 2,000,000 jobs have been lost since George W Bush took office, and it was the worst job loss in 70 years (notice she changed it). Then I said, she said, I said, she said.
So I went to the source of such figures, the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. It was true, in a 30-month period, 2.2 million workers lost their jobs, actually .79 percent (point seven nine percent) of the total labor population.
But I also noticed in a couple rows above...
In the early 1980's 2.8 million workers lost jobs, and that was 1.24 percent (one point two four, almost twice as much) of the total labor population lost jobs.
The press is claiming more jobs have been lost under the current president then have been lost in a century??? I could not find out how many lost jobs during the Great Depression, but according to Britannica, it was 25%-30% of the labor force.
I emailed the info to my sister who emailed back that she was quoting Greenspan in a CBS Jan 26th report. Unfortunately, CBS was not quoting Alan Greenspan. As is the common practice of today, very few quotes are used. Instead, the article said things like "Greenspan sought to address fears that many of the 2.8 million manufacturing jobs lost..." But wait. Who said he was addressing fears, or that those were the fears he was addressing? It's from nothing Greenspan stated, obviously, or they would have quoted him. Another CBS report on February 13th gives Hillary Clinton credit for the same type remarks, actually they claimed she chided Bush (well, gee, I have to admit I believe she probably did chide Bush) noting 2.9 million jobs were lost, including 2.8 million manufacturing jobs. But again, no quotes. We don't know what she really said. We don't know where she got her figures. All we know is that the writer of the report has decided to make this a campaign issue.
Modern journalists today are allowed to print anything, especially if they are just regurgitating what another journalist said or printed. No accountability.
How many times are we going to hear phrases like "As reported in a story from the Washington Post" or "As reported from a source at the White House". We either need to demand honesty and ethics and unbiased news from all our journalists, or we need to rid ourselves of "Freedom of the Press" because right now, the press has absolutely no accountability. It lies, it cheats, it destroys politicians, and it can be bought. In fact, there are almost no news sources today that are not profit driven. And the alternative news sources were created for the purpose of responding with Extreme Bias -- it is their mission.
There is no incentive for journalists to work hard, no incentive for them to verify information. If it is a story slanted to their personal beliefs -- oh well -- they are just quoting. What happened to my Editor back in the '70's who considered wire services as story leads only (not stories to be published), who said "If it is important enough to print, it is important enough to assign a reporter."
And when did all these adjectives and adverbs take up residence in our news? I don't care if the flagrantly unremorseful Mr. Story went up the steep, wide, cold marble stairs hastily with a murderous grin on his ashen face, as he arrogantly submitted his disdainful resignation; all I want to know is that he went up the stairs, and submitted his resignation.
That is news. Just the facts. All the rest is editorializing, and belongs in the back of section A. Not in published-as-gospel AP stories, not in the ticker at the bottom of the news channels, not on the front page.
