Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ethics. Show all posts

Friday, April 17, 2009

Susan Roesgen: Poster Girl for Unethical Journalism

Susan Roesgen is a "reporter" for CNN. With all due respect that "R" word has to be in quotes. She is emblematic of how so many in the mainstream media have strayed far away from any semblance of ethical & professional journalism. The majority of the Americans who took the time and made the effort to peacefully protest their displeasure at the massive amount of debt their government is racking up are not "extreme right-wing nutbars" like Roesgen and her colleagues would have you believe. Yet she could not hold back her personal disdain for all of them, including the man she started to "interview" but then rudely interrupted when what he was saying didn't fall into line with her own political views. What kind of REAL journalist would do that?

The United States of America was founded by citizens just like you see here in Chicago, who were angry at an unaccountable, uncaring government that had grown deaf to their very legitimate concerns. Is history repeating itself? Make no mistake, these people are angry at both political parties and the politicians within. This is not so much a protest at Barack Obama, as it is against the irresponsibility of government as a whole.

As a thought experiment, imagine Susan Roesgen transported back to 1776, shoving her microphone into the faces of the citizens of the original colones and asking them why they were revolting. Then, when not getting the answer she seeketh, pulling away and screaming, "What dost though protest against?! The King of England hath given you so much!"




Update: The following comment came from a fellow on another site. He lives in SE Florida:

I attended the Tea Party protest that was held in my town, more people than expected showed up and for such a small town, it was pleasantly surprising. One big issue that is drawing alot of justified criticism is the President’s first spending bill, that was over 1,000 pages long but was quickly voted on and signed before anyone had ample time to even read it! Any Republican politician who thinks that it was simply an anti-Democrat or anti-Obama protest is kidding themselves, they started the out of control spending when they were in power and the donkeys just put it all on steroids once they got control of the entire government. When I returned home and watched the coverage of the various protests that occurred all around this country, I was struck by several different observations:

Despite the fact that there were nearly a thousand of these Tea Parties drawing hundreds of thousands of citizens, the crowds were energetic, but very peaceful. There were no riots, burned or overturned vehicles, physical clashes with law enforcement personnel, beatings, property damage or crude effigies of anyone being defiled or destroyed in any way, quite a departure from what we usually see from large left wing demonstrations on any subject. Most participants carried handmade signs, and people of all ages, political ideologies & ethnic groups participated.

The majority of the news media who continually gets clobbered by Fox in the ratings no matter what the time slot tried to downplay the numbers or passion of those of us who chose to attend these rallies, disregarding the fact that many turned out in bad weather to make their voices heard, and these so-called journalists chose to insult us as well which is why Beck’s & O’Reilly’s re-runs beat the prime time programming of CNN, ABC & MSNBC combined in the ratings, Fox dominates the daily 5pm to 11pm time slot by a very large margin. As for this alleged “reporter”, she’s a total disgrace and would be utterly embarrassed if she had any professional pride at all, which she obviously lacks! She humiliated herself and thanks to the Internet, her shameful attempt to “be the story” vs. simply reporting will likely be replayed & laughed at from now until eternity.

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

A Few Thoughts on Newspapers

A favourite writer of mine, Amy Alkon, posted this piece on her blog. Here's the comment I left her:

If a food manufacturer were consistently putting out a product that made people sick, would they be allowed to continue "as is"?

If a courier company consistently delivered packages late and damaged, would people continue to give them their business?

If an engineering firm consistently erected bridges that collapsed, would they be allowed to continue their work "as is"?

My PROBLEM with the MSM is that their "News" is no longer N-E-W-S. Most every story I read has a significant bias to it, which makes me immediately distrust the writer and the story.

Editorials can be slanted any which way the writer(s) want but not news.

The day that journalists once again decide to follow professional ethics then I will support newspapers again. Right now they're neither professional nor ethical.

Saturday, November 15, 2008

In Support of Ethical Capitalism

The biggest disappointment I've experienced as an adult is the realization that too many public debates end up being hijacked by the two most extreme points of view. Abortion is probably the most glaring example of this. Rarely can an intelligent public discussion occur on this subject because the loudest voices tend to label those who disagree with them as extremists with the opposite point of view. This charge is most often not true but it serves to silence the debate.

Such is the case now with the discussion of how best America (and the West in general) should proceed forward in the aftermath of the failed financial sector. With so many people being personally hurt there are frequent calls to discard capitalism altogether and move to something else. This would be a tragic mistake.

Shortly after reading the long article I've previously discussed, I watched this video:


The gentleman on the right touched upon a key aspect of what has gone wrong in the financial sector: Lack of Ethics.

The extreme opposite of Marxism/Socialism is not Capitalism, but Capitalism WITHOUT ETHICS. The solution is not to move away from Capitalism but simply to severely penalize those who choose to operate without ethics. Many of us in the general public are shocked that anyone has been able to legally act so unethically in the first place but such is the case. Greed has corrupted a great many. Now it's time for them to pay the price ... that is if they haven't bought off too many of those who will be judging them.

Monday, November 10, 2008

Will Journalism Ever Recover from 2008?

I've been discussing this Washington Post's Ombudsman's report with a California reader of mine, Russ. To say that the ombudsman, Deborah Howell, is stating the obvious would be the understatement of the year! But of us agree on two other related points:

  1. She went no where far enough in her condemnation of her paper's reporting.

  2. Absolutely nothing will change. Much like an insincere person going to Confession at a Roman Catholic church, the words have been said but now it'll be back to the same old, same old.
In our discussion Russ referred me to this more realistic condemnation of journalists by Orson Scott Card. I never saw it when it was published. Reading it for the first time now is extremely enlightening. It confirms everything I observed and suspected during the election campaign. But the degree of the cover-up I did not fully appreciate until now.

Sunday, October 05, 2008

Don't Agree With Someone? Use the Race Card!

If you'd like to see how truly pathetic journalism has become, read this article by one Douglass K. Daniel of the Associated Press. He accuses Sarah Palin of being a racist, yet provides absolutely no evidence of this charge.

IMHO there is nothing more despicable than playing the race card, especially in America at this time. Mr. Daniel is a perfect example of a Post-Modern Liberal Bigot. Be sure to read the comments on the article - priceless!

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

The Lunacy of Environmental Ethics

This morning on CBC Radio 1 I heard what, on the surface, was supposed to be a serious discussion. But I kept thinking that I must have been transported back to April 1st.

The guest was a former beef-farmer turned researcher named Gidon Eshel. You can read more here. He went on in great detail about how eating meat - any kind of meat, but especially beef - is completely unethical and comparatively just as bad as driving an SUV instead of a Prius. Why? Mainly because of ... wait for it ... the amount of a gas a cow expels (farts!) on a daily basis.
I have little doubt that the research numbers of this fellow are probably quite accurate. But I've long realized that EVERYTHING we do leaves a footprint on the environment. This includes, but is not limited to:

  • Reading a book
  • Going for a walk (unless you're naked and walking in the forest)
  • Sleeping (unless you're naked and walking in the forest)
  • Watching TV
  • Listening to music
  • Reading these very words
  • Just living
I have little doubt though that the Environmental Righteous Activists (ERA) among us are going to start preaching about the new evil: Eating meat. There'll undoubtedly be some fast food restaurants picketed.

When people get so ridiculous, the only thing to do is to treat them with mockery and sarcasm. I'm going to have some great fun with the ERA acquaintances I know. I'm going to question every single activity they partake in and ask them, in the most serious of tones, whether they're okay living the unethical life they do!

Monday, March 26, 2007

Late Breaking News: Charest Keeps His Seat

Turns out the CBC can't be trusted. They declared that Quebec premier Jean Charest had definitively lost his seat. Now he seems to have won, and with a 1,300 vote margin no less:

CandidatePartyVote CountVote ShareElected
Jean CharestLIB1313636.56% X
Claude ForguesPQ1180432.85%
Michel DumontADQ640917.84%
Christian BibeauQS22636.3%
Steve DuboisGRN22036.13%
Hubert RichardIND1150.32%
March 27, 12:30:46 AM EDT 212 of 212 polls reporting

It annoys me to no end that once again a major media outlet is more concerned with being the first to declare something than being factual. I wonder if the CBC will issue an apology?

I just send them the following inquiry but bet I'll never receive a response:

I understand a great deal about computer models but do no understand how you could have declared Jean Charest losing, when he clearly ended up winning and not by a small margin.

Based on similar false reporting in past elections, when are you going to place accuracy above the race to be number one?

Why could your newsroom not have waited until "Elected" really meant ELECTED???