To be Politically Correct - and Katrina

[tw]

Ted Koppel will be retiring Tuesday. Other who interview him often go to that so famous Nightline Broadcast Date: Thursday - September 1, 2005 where Ted asks Michael Brown why people were dying. An interview potentially explosive since you can almost see Ted seething as he calmly keeps asking Michael Brown questions that 'Brownie' keeps dodging.

Scott Gurvey of the Nightly Business Report comments about this interview and what so many journalists confront. Excerpt is posted here only for reference because this - Scott's comment - cannot be appreciated in only one reading.

11/8/05: Mistakes, Objectivity and Katrina ... the topic was media comment and criticism regarding news coverage of Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. The critics’ complaints seem to fall into two categories, factual mistakes and loss of objectivity. ...

The complaint about objectivity is not so easily dismissed. But the issue I think should be addressed is to what degree a journalist should remove himself from an event. Fairness and balance are the hallmarks of responsible journalism, as is presenting all sides of an issue. Still, and I know there will be some editors who will disagree with me, I often think the goal of complete objectivity is unreasonable and impossible to achieve. ...

Williams point is well taken. Journalists do have a role as surrogates for the public.

That is also a primary point made by Ted Koppel as others interviewed him. I am particularly reminded of a Ted Koppel town meeting in South Africa. A meeting so full of tension and anger that at one point I expected someone to pull out a shotgun. It was the mastery of Koppel that fights did not break out in the audience. To appreciate what is being cited, one must first learn the details - IOW see the show. But how could Koppel not become part of that story?

BTW, the South African broadcasting company then rebroadcast that town meeting the following night. Ted believes that show had a small part in breaking down apartite. I think he underplays how powerful that meeting really was. It did not just address but attacked the underlying emotion upon which apartite was predicated. So you tell me. How could Ted not become part of the story?

If you only read the above summary, then don't bother to respond. Without first reading Scott Gurvey's commentary a few times, then one would have no idea what I have posted here; what I have just asked.

Cited is a point repeatedly made in a previous thread entitled
Why didn't Hollywood save New Orleans? and repeated in Why didn't Hollywood save New Orleans? . I asked a simple question only with intent of demonstrating how spin and perceptions are created. Instead, numerous responses demonstrated that posters here could not even stay objective; first attached preconceived opinion to what was only a simple question. Some could not just answer the question without 'putting words in my mouth' - immediately assuming I was making a declaration when it was only a simple question.

Maybe he does. Maybe he does not. But based upon the actions and promises of George Jr during this week in New Orleans and Washington DC, can you show me a single fact - a single act - that says he does not hate blacks? Regardless of whether the statement is true or not, bottom line - George Jr did not one act to dispell that hypothesis. George Jr did numerous actions to encourage the "He hates blacks" assumption. #1 on my list is all that food, water, and medicine that was not delivered by Air Force One.

Just the facts. Actions are the bottom line. Show me where George Jr did anything last week to dispell the rumors of racism. Show me.

Imagine problems a reporter must have when concrete towers are also crashing down near his home and workplace. Does that discussion not demonstrate the Scott Gurvey commentary? Criticism too often based with preconceived assumptions?

Lurkers are encouraged to review that previous 3 Sept 2005 discussion. The question was simple and objective. After pages of responses, so many could not just answer a simple question. That thread also demonstrates to what Scott Gurvey's commentary asks.

[xoxoxoBruce]

What? Are you shilling for Transcripts.TV, now?

Maybe they're not part of the story but certainly direct where the story will go. Because of time restraints on broadcast news the whole story is never told, you have to go to print or the internet to get the whole story. Even then it usually requires multiple sources.

So broadcast journalists have to direct the interview toward the important points. That means there is a risk of the reporter guiding the story away from some points too. We have to weigh the reporters questions as well as the politicians answers.

If a reporter doesn’t ask the questions I want answers to, it becomes non-news unless (s)he brings up something I was completely unaware of. But that still leaves me with questions unanswered.

There’s another thread about communicating with elected representatives and most people were dissatisfied with the answers they got. It’s easy to bullshit and baffle an individual in writing.

But when a reporter risks their ability to get another interview by asking the tough questions, the politician knows his answers will be weighed by thousands, maybe millions, of voters plus recorded for posterity.

[Undertoad]

I asked a simple question only with intent of demonstrating how spin and perceptions are created.

In the context of the Cellar, it's dishonest and rude to ask the question for that purpose. It's called trolling, and you deserve the responses you get.