All the news that’s fit…

f_a8e348656e

The motto which sits at the upper left corner of every New York Times issue states “All the News That’s Fit to Print”. It’s been there for 118 years. When Adolph Ochs coined the slogan, the idea of television, radio, the internet, cable news networks, blogs, and countless other modes for the conveyance and reporting of news was then beyond the imagination of anyone but science fiction writers. To me the slogan suggests that someone of integrity has reviewed a full spectrum of events and having made informed and responsible judgments, put news-worthy material out there. (I can hear the grumbling now: what does responsible mean? What constitutes news-worthy?) I don’t always know, but I can tell you that what I see ain’t it. CNNs Fredricka Whitfield calling the perpetrator of the attack in Dallas “courageous and brave” ain’t it. Former Fox News host Glenn Beck suggesting that the Baltimore riots were staged ain’t it. Commentator Marc Lamont Hill raging that those same riots were “uprisings” not riots because of police terrorism is sure as hell not it.

Do such guardians of news content exist? I gave up watching the news on television because it’s simply…well, not news. A healthy diet of who shot who, what building burned down, what celebrity was arrested, inaccurate weather updates, and sports do not make something newsworthy in my mind. There are far more serious national and global events that we all should be more familiar with. Then again, given the popular diet of reality television, I suppose it’s not a big stretch to see why there isn’t more opposition to watching non-news. Why can’t we get a news report on the tax issues facing our country? Why can’t we see an analysis of the danger we face from Russia, or China, or North Korea? Why can’t we get a fully informed report on exactly what happened at the McKinney swimming pool? Instead we get a news break with the barest of information and within minutes judgments have been made, and lives have been ruined.

It broadcasts the overall decline of editorial standards. Journalism is supposed to be founded on the principles of accuracy, objectivity, and impartiality. The American Society of News Editors actually has a Statement of Principles:

ARTICLE I – Responsibility. The primary purpose of gathering and distributing news and opinion is to serve the general welfare by informing the people and enabling them to make judgments on the issues of the time. Newspapermen and women who abuse the power of their professional role for selfish motives or unworthy purposes are faithless to that public trust. The American press was made free not just to inform or just to serve as a forum for debate but also to bring an independent scrutiny to bear on the forces of power in the society, including the conduct of official power at all levels of government.

ARTICLE III – Independence. Journalists must avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety as well as any conflict of interest or the appearance of conflict. They should neither accept anything nor pursue any activity that might compromise or seem to compromise their integrity.

ARTICLE IV – Truth and Accuracy. Good faith with the reader is the foundation of good journalism. Every effort must be made to assure that the news content is accurate, free from bias and in context, and that all sides are presented fairly. Editorials, analytical articles and commentary should be held to the same standards of accuracy with respect to facts as news reports. Significant errors of fact, as well as errors of omission, should be corrected promptly and prominently.

ARTICLE V – Impartiality. To be impartial does not require the press to be unquestioning or to refrain from editorial expression. Sound practice, however, demands a clear distinction for the reader between news reports and opinion. Articles that contain opinion or personal interpretation should be clearly identified.

ARTICLE VI – Fair Play. Journalists should respect the rights of people involved in the news, observe the common standards of decency and stand accountable to the public for the fairness and accuracy of their news reports. Persons publicly accused should be given the earliest opportunity to respond. Pledges of confidentiality to news sources must be honored at all costs, and therefore should not be given lightly. Unless there is clear and pressing need to maintain confidences, sources of information should be identified.

Does anyone heed these principles, or is it more about providing a platform for advertisers to sell their stuff? Since when did journalists abandon a code of ethics for the type of biased reporting found in newspapers and media streams? How is it that any form of news media is permitted to skew to the left or the right? This surely adds one more factor to the polarizing of our nation just as badly as politics or religion because it’s used to inform opinions and those opinions will only be as sound as the information they’re drawn from. As I mentioned, look how the country is now dividing over the issue of police violence – it’s the quandary of the chicken and the egg – which begat the other? Instead it’s a see-saw of argument that no one will ever win, but I guarantee that it will only lead to more blame, more invective, and solve absolutely nothing.

News that’s fit to print; man, I wish I had some.

The Supreme Court: Duped, except for one…

Laughing all the way...

Laughing all the way…

On June 1st, the Supreme Court rendered a decision favoring a girl by the name of Samantha Elauf over retailer Abercrombie & Fitch. News coverage was widespread, and nearly every publication I read had virtually the same recital of the facts.

Simply stated, this young Muslim woman applied for a position at Abercrombie in 2011. The assistant manager felt she was an excellent candidate, but both he and the store manager were concerned that her wearing of a hijab would fail to exemplify the stores “look policy”. Her application was thus declined. Enter the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). The arguments of the case went back and forth on the technicalities of who knew what when. Ultimately, Elauf was awarded $20,000. The Court of Appeals overturned it, and the case wound up going all the way to the Supreme Court.

Here’s the thing that gets me. Elauf, according to her LinkedIn page, was employed by retailer Forever 21as a Visual Merchandising Manager from 2008 to 2015. So, being in the business means that she had to be familiar with the culture and style of Abercrombie; just look at their ads and their shirtless staff. Why would a girl with her upbringing and religious persuasion want to work in a store that goes against her grain? This point was also brought out by fellow blogger Pamela Geller – the woman who brought you Garland, Texas. If she was gainfully employed at the time, why did she just happen to pursue a change in jobs to Abercrombie? This year she finally did move to Urban Outfitters, but not before leaving a ruckus in her wake.

This is contrivance in its purest form. This is not a win for the freedom of religious expression. This is not a win for equal opportunity. This is not a win for social justice or discrimination. This is religion being forced down our throats. Do I approve of the style of Abercrombie? Not really. I remember the days when it was an amazing purveyor of fashion and accessories, not where a bunch of boy-toy types flaunted their hairless chests – thank goodness they’ve moved away from this. But, it makes me crazy that the Supreme Court (except for Clarence Thomas) wasn’t able to see through the ruse.

Patriotism Reborn?

Photo by Paola Pozzaglia

Photo by Paola Pozzaglia

I’m not really a flag-waver. Oh, I once was, believe me. I used to sew American Flag patches on my jackets, I had a sign that read “dulce et decorum est pro patria mori” hanging over my desk, my biggest dream was to join what was then called the Navy underwater demolition team (UDT); it has since evolved into a unit known as the SEALs. Once, after being on assignment in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia for a period of seven months, I had to fly to the city of Jeddah on the Red Sea coast to visit the Brazilian embassy. On the way, I passed the American embassy which had our flag waving from the rooftop; it brought tears to my eyes.

As I got older, and hopefully a little wiser, I began to see signs of mold eating away at my country from the inside. I saw it in the way we were conducting foreign policy. I witnessed how my fellow countrymen acted while overseas, and it was often followed by a sense of embarrassment, especially since I was also witness to how people from other countries, notably European nations, behaved. My flag-waving desire began to wane. Quickly.

It hasn’t really gotten any better as the situation, especially our internal divide, gets worse. Having said that, I wrote a post about ISIS the other day. It naturally garnered some invective toward the United States. I found myself growing irritated over their comments, but answered each comment in defense of our nation. I think it has something to do with: it’s my country so I can make fun of it if I want to, but you can’t.

The irony of that is the myriad problems we face within our country makes me even angrier than it did before. Why? Because we need to be the best damned country on the planet, that’s why. We need to be the guys who wear the white hats like the old cowboy movies.

Is this a resurgence of my latent patriotism? Did it take the insults from people in other countries to stir my pot? Maybe, just maybe…