Jim Stillman
Nevar
The irresponsible news
April 30th 2009 01:06
An advantage of Cable News is that it is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and provides both straight news and opinion pieces.
A disadvantage of Cable News is that it is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and provides both straight news and opinion pieces.
This paradox can be observed in the coverage of two types of stories; first. there is the news surrounding the current flu epidemic and second, stories about the murder or child abdication, de jour. The former breeds panic while urging that panic be avoided and the latter makes a mockery about the presumption of innocence and the possibility of a fair trial based on admissible evidence.
My eldest grandson, Josh, of whom I have several times spoken with admiration, wrote me,
I think it would be interesting to comment on the irresponsibility of the major news networks covering swine flu. I am looking at the CNN.com page now, and it reads "...outbreak of swine flu in Mexico, in which scores died, and in the US, where numerous cases were confirmed." The numbers below show 26 confirmed cases in Mexico (7 deaths), and 40 cases in the US (no fatalities).
Every night, televised news throws around words like "pandemic," "epidemic," "Mexico Metropolis is under siege," and "governments scrambling to prevent further outbreak." But "we don't want to freak anyone out."
I understand that news networks need to sell themselves, but there's plenty of news to be reported without hyping up animal flu.
Every night, televised news throws around words like "pandemic," "epidemic," "Mexico Metropolis is under siege," and "governments scrambling to prevent further outbreak." But "we don't want to freak anyone out."
I understand that news networks need to sell themselves, but there's plenty of news to be reported without hyping up animal flu.
At a press conference this week chaired by the Secretary of Homeland Security, itself an elevation of the flu from a purely public health issue to that of national security, two points were made repeatedly. First that panic was not appropriate and counterproductive; second the disease should be referred to as A/H1N1 virus, and not “swine virus” as the latter has had some effect in reducing the price of pork products and, by extension, all United States meat products, evidencing international concern about importing them.
Earlier this week, several countries, including China and Thailand, announced a ban on pork products from the United States. That has prompted some damage control by Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack at the press conference. His function was to clarify the name: “This really isn’t swine flu. It’s the H1N1 virus. . . . “We want to say to consumers here and abroad that there is no risk to you, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever that there is any link between consuming pork, prepared pork products and the H1N1 virus.”
Notwithstanding these admonitions, reporters, to a man or woman, asked questions about the “swine” virus and, just as consistently, the government spokespersons answered about the A/H1N1 virus.
The Administration spokespersons tried valiantly to calm the reporters and, by extension, the public. They attempted to place the disease in perspective, the condition was treatable by existing vaccines, the supply was ample and was being increased and that drastic measures were not needed. They repeated over and over again that “closing the border” was impractical and of doubtful efficacy.
All the while, the crawl on CNN at the bottom of the screen referred to the spread of “swine flu” throughout the world, how panic was gripping people all over the globe, the number of people suspected of having this variety of the flu, each time (briefly) noting that the incidence of actual infection was uncertain.
Mixed message: Everyone agrees that panic is neither helpful nor appropriate. All day and evening, the TV networks report each suspected infected person, magnifying the situation and causing panic. Josh is completely on point
.
The other area in which CNN, and its brethren, Fox Cable and MSNBC, do a disservice as they struggle to fill 24 available hours is in the constant “news” stories about persons accused and, by the network, guilty of crime.
The networks report gossip and innuendo, material that would never be heard in a court and “convict”. This has two consequences, the lives of possibly blameless persons are ruined and any potential future jury pool is hopelessly infected. For examples of this, I cite the murder of Jon Benet Ramsey in 1996, the 2005 disappearance of Natalee Holloway in Aruba, the current pre-trial activities in the Florida disappearance of Caylee Anthony and the arrest of her mother, Casey Anthony.
In the first of these cases, that of the death of beauty queen Jon Benet, suspicion by the police that the child’s mother had some connection with the child’s death was coupled by the need for ratings by Fox’s Nancy Grace and Greta Van Susteren.
Night after night, these self-proclaimed legal experts announced breathlessly that Mrs. Ramsey had killed the child in a rage after the youngster had wet her bed, then that Mr. Ramsey had killed his daughter whom he had been sexually abusing in order to cover up the abuse, then the nine-year old brother implicated.
Patsy and John Ramsey were literally driven from Denver; Mrs. Ramsey died of cancer before it was acknowledged that no one in the family had been involved. By then the media had done its best to gain ratings by destruction.
Then came the case of Natalee Holloway, a young woman celebrating her high school graduation in the Dutch island of Aruba. Nancy Grace, Larry King and Van Susteren ran endless loops of film showing one of the suspect’s father going to his automobile rather than be subjected to the shouted questions from the crowd. At this time, no one has been brought to trial never mind adjudicated guilty. I would guess that there could not be a jury empanelled anywhere that has not been tainted and convinced that three young me had killed Ms Holloway and disposed of the body, somewhere. (I would also guess that little of this small island has not been dug up looking for a body, although Ms Van Susteren obtained a since repudiated “confession” that the woman had been sold into slavery.)
The third example I would offer is that of Caylee Anthony. One blogger, Jan Barrett, was clear,
Everyone says Casey is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. I read where someone made the statement that we are not a court of law, we are the public and here in America there we are allowed to form our own opinions so I am only voicing my opinion. In MY OPINION Casey Anthony is as guilty as sin and yes I do hope she gets the death penalty.
Yes, one is allowed to have any opinion he or she wants, but people in media, on television, have a soapbox that should be used responsibly. They should be held to a higher standard.
Assuming guilt or promoting panic is inexcusable. Professing to do otherwise is hypocritical and simply wrong.
This afternoon, I listened to Michael Savage explaining the flight of a presidential airplane over New York City, a bonehead move by any criterion. Mr. Savage asserted that the airplane was being piloted by a “rogue” U.S. Air Force pilot who hijacked the airplane to protest President Obama’s “hijacking of America”. The nuttiness and irresponsibility of Michael Savage is worthy of a separate article and, as soon as I calm down, it will be written.
This article has been published by the author on EXAMINER.COM
| 33 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
