Richard and Mayumi Heene got all the media attention they wanted — plus much more. Their son, Falcon is alive, well, and not floating in a helium balloon above Colorado (nor was he ever).
The 6-year-old had reportedly crawled into the homemade contraption and floated miles away from his family home in Fort Collins. After his story exploded onto the national media scene, he was found hiding in the attic of his house.
Although this isn't the typical boy-who-cried wolf scenario, I wonder how the MSM feels for avidly covering the plight of an airborne child only to find out that he never actually floated away and was actually part of a scheme concocted by his camera-loving parents.
Even before Falcon leaked the truth, the story had made it to nearly every corner of the nation, and many parts of the world. Was it in vain for the media to discover "Balloon Boy" was all a hoax? If CNN, for example, had waited for even just a couple hours, would the Heene family have received as much press attention? I think if CNN had deliberated a bit more — if the editors had just let the situation marinate a bit longer — perhaps a more meaningful story might have headlined instead.
Congratulations to Wolf Blitzer for dragging out the truth but I just don't see that story as significant as the war we're in, the situation in Honduras, or the many starving regions around the world. These situations, along with dozens of others, are those that should be brought to our attention — not a story about two nutty parents.
"Balloon boy" certainly is a unique story, but a meaningless one to say the least. And I doubt society was improved by the show that the Heenes put on. I think the MSM should've left that story to the Colorado press.
This leads me to wonder how often a media outlet should publish or broadcast stories about children. When is a story about a child relevant to a national, or sometimes international, audience without exploiting him or her? What good does it really do to see the Gosselin family splayed across the pages of newspaper and magazine covers?
A lot of our interest with children has to do with our culture. Our hearts to go out to child victims of kidnapping, domestic and sexual abuse and labor violations — these certainly are eye-catching stories for media outlets. But I think children, like rape victims, should be somewhat hidden from the public eye in cases of child abuse, and even stories as unique as "Balloon Boy."
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Must pinch the general news media on this one.
"Saturday Night Live"'s resident Barack Obama impersonator, Fred Armisen, introduced the show last weekend with a monologue claiming his executive accomplishments have amounted to zero.
"When you look at my record it's very clear what I've done so far. And that is, nothing... Nada," Armisen quipped, reviewing a checklist of things he hasn't done almost one year into his presidency. (On the docket: closing Guantanamo Bay, improving Afghanistan, reforming health care, and bringing the Olympics to Chicago in 2016.)
Of course there is some debate over what promises the president has and hasn't delivered and why said claims haven't been achieved.
But still the question remains, why would CNN and PolitiFact.com fact check a comedy sketch?
The fact of the matter is "SNL" political shenanigans have been broadcast before. Who remembers Dan Akroyd as Richard Nixon, Dana Carvey as George Bush, Chevy Chase as Gerald Ford, Phil Hartman and Darrell Hammond as Bill Clinton and Will Ferrell as George W.? And, lest ye forget, Tina Fey's rendition of Sarah Palin was quite popular.
I think the sketch was reported on to the point of overkill - more than I've ever seen in the news. Several MSNBC, FOX and CNN hosts deemed it important enough to air the controversial skit on their broadcasts (some even in the evening).
Since the first season of "SNL," comedians have impersonated presidents, presidential candidates and politicos in general and it's curious to see comedy having such a focal point in the hard news media.
Bill Adair, editor of PolitiFact.com, noted, "This is not a fair portrayal of how Obama's done, but it's comedy, it doesn't have to be fair."
Adair is right. It was unfair, and that's a main element to comedy. And stooging is never really fair to politicians.
If I could just leave aspiring editors with a final thought it would be this: there is no limit to the way in which comedians will be impertinent. Fueling their comedy by reporting on it on evening news broadcasts reflects, I must say, poor taste and somewhat of an agenda.
Here's the video:
"Saturday Night Live"'s resident Barack Obama impersonator, Fred Armisen, introduced the show last weekend with a monologue claiming his executive accomplishments have amounted to zero.
"When you look at my record it's very clear what I've done so far. And that is, nothing... Nada," Armisen quipped, reviewing a checklist of things he hasn't done almost one year into his presidency. (On the docket: closing Guantanamo Bay, improving Afghanistan, reforming health care, and bringing the Olympics to Chicago in 2016.)
Of course there is some debate over what promises the president has and hasn't delivered and why said claims haven't been achieved.
But still the question remains, why would CNN and PolitiFact.com fact check a comedy sketch?
The fact of the matter is "SNL" political shenanigans have been broadcast before. Who remembers Dan Akroyd as Richard Nixon, Dana Carvey as George Bush, Chevy Chase as Gerald Ford, Phil Hartman and Darrell Hammond as Bill Clinton and Will Ferrell as George W.? And, lest ye forget, Tina Fey's rendition of Sarah Palin was quite popular.
I think the sketch was reported on to the point of overkill - more than I've ever seen in the news. Several MSNBC, FOX and CNN hosts deemed it important enough to air the controversial skit on their broadcasts (some even in the evening).
Since the first season of "SNL," comedians have impersonated presidents, presidential candidates and politicos in general and it's curious to see comedy having such a focal point in the hard news media.
Bill Adair, editor of PolitiFact.com, noted, "This is not a fair portrayal of how Obama's done, but it's comedy, it doesn't have to be fair."
Adair is right. It was unfair, and that's a main element to comedy. And stooging is never really fair to politicians.
If I could just leave aspiring editors with a final thought it would be this: there is no limit to the way in which comedians will be impertinent. Fueling their comedy by reporting on it on evening news broadcasts reflects, I must say, poor taste and somewhat of an agenda.
Here's the video:
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Word Choice In Framing
Welcome to Pinched, a blog about today's journalism through the eyes of an aspiring editor. To be succinct, I'm examining bias found in hard news and looking at how different publications frame a similar story. Regardless of what we think about bias, as long as we have the First Amendment, it will never disappear.
For awhile I brainstormed different ways of best explaining the essentials of media bias, which was a struggle. And then I uncovered Mad Man: Is Glenn Beck Bad for America?, an article published in Time recently. Journalist David Von Drehle did a fabulous job capturing one distortion that describes media bias. Here's the lede:
As UI journalism professor Frank Durham, media bias is not a bad thing. Instead, he reasoned that bias is analogous to voice. Durham said he would rather hear different voices than dozens of automated response robots.
A controversy that's been popping up in the news about the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) ACORN is a non-profit organization geared toward assisting lower-income families in health care, public safety, housing and voter registration.
The story broke when ACORN employees at five satellite offices were recorded on a hidden camera offering advice to two conservative activists posing as a pimp and a prostitute looking to open a prostitution business. They told ACORN employees their venture would include underage girls. The pair, Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe, said their undercover reporting was aimed at exposing ACORN, which garnered a good amount of attention in the media. A CNN broadcast warned against the 20 and 25-year-old activists' take on investigative journalism, calling it as "gotcha" journalism (but that's a different blog for a different day).
The US Government moved to cease their funding to the organization. According to a recent statement, ACORN has taken action to prevent situations like the ones that occurred at their satellite offices in Baltimore, New York City, San Diego and San Bernandino, Calif., and D.C.
What I found intriguing was the way in which several media outlets described the illegal actions that Giles and O'Keefe proposed to ACORN employees. Let's take a look at a few.
1. CNN cited Giles and O'Keefe's proposal as a "prostitution ring" in the lede, later mentioning that it would include underage girls from El Salvador.
2. An AP article mentioned the plan saying, "The pair also claimed they planned to employ teenage girls from central America as prostitutes, and an ACORN employee suggested that up to three of the girls could be claimed as dependents." The article didn't list the ages of Giles and O'Keefe, instead they were described as "a man and a woman."
3. The LA Times wrote that "An undercover video shot at the group's office in National City purports to show workers willing to help someone interested in setting up a prostitution ring, possibly with girls from Tijuana."
4. In a Washington Post story, Giles and O'Keefe's business plan was called a "brothel filled with underage Central American prostitutes to finance a bid for political office," and referred to Giles, O'Keefe as "youngsters."
5. Here's a recent clip from "The Daily Show With John Stewart" on the recent events:
As you can see, in situations as delicate as the ACORN scandal, editors must decide the best way to report on underage prostitutes (as ridiculous as this situation is) in a way that inserts simple information without offending readers. I think the AP article did it best because it was short (about six inches) which was just the right amount of space that a story like this deserved. It was also to-the-point. A Maryland ACORN official was cited as calling Giles and O'Keefe's act an attempt to "smear" the organization.
I would call that just about accurate.
For awhile I brainstormed different ways of best explaining the essentials of media bias, which was a struggle. And then I uncovered Mad Man: Is Glenn Beck Bad for America?, an article published in Time recently. Journalist David Von Drehle did a fabulous job capturing one distortion that describes media bias. Here's the lede:
On Sept. 12, a large crowd gathered in Washington to protest ... what? The goals of Congress and the Obama Administration, mainly — the cost, the scale, the perceived leftist intent. The crowd's agenda was wide-ranging, so it's hard to be more specific. "End the Fed," a sign read. A schoolboy's placard denounced "Obama's Nazi Youth Militia." Another poster declared, "We the People for Capitalism Not Socialism." If you get your information from liberal sources, the crowd numbered about 70,000, many of them greedy racists. If you get your information from conservative sources, the crowd was hundreds of thousands strong, perhaps as many as a million, and the tenor was peaceful and patriotic. Either way, you may not be inclined to believe what we say about numbers, according to a recent poll that found record-low levels of public trust of the mainstream media.
As UI journalism professor Frank Durham, media bias is not a bad thing. Instead, he reasoned that bias is analogous to voice. Durham said he would rather hear different voices than dozens of automated response robots.
A controversy that's been popping up in the news about the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) ACORN is a non-profit organization geared toward assisting lower-income families in health care, public safety, housing and voter registration.
The story broke when ACORN employees at five satellite offices were recorded on a hidden camera offering advice to two conservative activists posing as a pimp and a prostitute looking to open a prostitution business. They told ACORN employees their venture would include underage girls. The pair, Hannah Giles and James O'Keefe, said their undercover reporting was aimed at exposing ACORN, which garnered a good amount of attention in the media. A CNN broadcast warned against the 20 and 25-year-old activists' take on investigative journalism, calling it as "gotcha" journalism (but that's a different blog for a different day).
The US Government moved to cease their funding to the organization. According to a recent statement, ACORN has taken action to prevent situations like the ones that occurred at their satellite offices in Baltimore, New York City, San Diego and San Bernandino, Calif., and D.C.
What I found intriguing was the way in which several media outlets described the illegal actions that Giles and O'Keefe proposed to ACORN employees. Let's take a look at a few.
1. CNN cited Giles and O'Keefe's proposal as a "prostitution ring" in the lede, later mentioning that it would include underage girls from El Salvador.
2. An AP article mentioned the plan saying, "The pair also claimed they planned to employ teenage girls from central America as prostitutes, and an ACORN employee suggested that up to three of the girls could be claimed as dependents." The article didn't list the ages of Giles and O'Keefe, instead they were described as "a man and a woman."
3. The LA Times wrote that "An undercover video shot at the group's office in National City purports to show workers willing to help someone interested in setting up a prostitution ring, possibly with girls from Tijuana."
4. In a Washington Post story, Giles and O'Keefe's business plan was called a "brothel filled with underage Central American prostitutes to finance a bid for political office," and referred to Giles, O'Keefe as "youngsters."
5. Here's a recent clip from "The Daily Show With John Stewart" on the recent events:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| The Audacity of Hos | ||||
| ||||
As you can see, in situations as delicate as the ACORN scandal, editors must decide the best way to report on underage prostitutes (as ridiculous as this situation is) in a way that inserts simple information without offending readers. I think the AP article did it best because it was short (about six inches) which was just the right amount of space that a story like this deserved. It was also to-the-point. A Maryland ACORN official was cited as calling Giles and O'Keefe's act an attempt to "smear" the organization.
I would call that just about accurate.
EXTRA:
Here are a few helpful websites that will help you determine journalistic slants anywhere. From reading headlines to considering sources and beyond, it's wise to develop an editorial eye when digesting the news.
Here are a few helpful websites that will help you determine journalistic slants anywhere. From reading headlines to considering sources and beyond, it's wise to develop an editorial eye when digesting the news.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)