“Anthony Scaramucci, the short-lived White House communications director, is making the rounds on TV next week. Scaramucci will be interviewed by George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s This Week on Sunday. Then he’ll appear on “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” on CBS on Monday.” — CNN.com
Folks, here’s a story about Tony the Moocha’
He was the red-hot Scaramucc(a)
The roughest, toughest gym-ripped male
Ain’t no way is he gonna end up in jail
(Call and response chorus)
Hi-dee hi-dee hi-dee hi (hi-dee hi-dee hi-dee hi)
Mooch took the call, sold stocks, his wife just gone
Fame’s ahead — what could go wrong
Left the Street named Wall for an Office that’s Oval
Won’t bury Caesar, but he packed a shovel
(Call and response chorus)
Hi-dee hi-dee hi-dee hi (hi-dee hi-dee hi-dee hi) (Similar scat improv for lines 3 and 4)Continue reading →
I am a native of our state, now living in Northwest Arkansas. This letter is to request you vote for any presidential candidate besides Donald J. Trump when the state’s electors meet Monday, Dec. 19.
This request does not come from partisanship but from consideration of the man Mr. Trump has shown himself to be personally and professionally through his adult life, since he declared his candidacy 17 months ago and, especially, the two weeks before and two weeks since the Nov. 8 general election.
Of the last period in particular, Mr. Trump
Has dropped promises he repeatedly and consistently made to woo voters
Continues or allows subordinates to engage in business that profits from his federal standing
Nominated individuals to top Executive Branch positions who lack sufficient competence in the areas they are to lead (yes, some seem OK)
Displays a lack of shrewdness and self-control when reacting on social and news media to mere criticism
Exhibits other serious character flaws as reported in reputable journalism organizations, so well covered that you don’t need me to further list
None of us has a crystal ball, but Mr. Trump will need far less than the four-year term as Commander in Chief to — at the least — bring shame to the people of the United States of America. Indeed, it is reasonable to foresee domestically economic turmoil or internationally greater risk of military or terroristic upheaval during his administration. Greater risk, that is, than with any of the other top candidates of either major party.
This is not a plea to vote for the Democratic Clinton-Kaine ticket. By your helping to drop Mr. Trump’s electoral total below the 270 simple-majority votes — by choosing anyone else or abstaining — you will prove your patriotism. Please let the Constitution guide the next steps, in Congress.
You were selected as an Arkansas elector because you are a longtime loyal Republican. You may find “disruptive” or “overwhelming” — as the Democrat-Gazette quoted two electors Nov. 20 in “State GOP Electors: Changing TrumpVote Out of the Question” — citizens contacting you about the Electoral College. Perhaps this is because you were appointed by your party, not by the state nor by voters. But by the Constitution, U.S. Code and state law, you do help select the president of this democracy.
America is not a nice country. Hardly any of the other countries think so. If they say the U.S. is a nice nation, that’s for show, to stay on our good side. It’s just to be nice.
We are a nation led by elected officials, often compromised by “contributions,” as we call them.
We are a nation of laws tented by a tarp of unalienable rights. If Americans love to love its laws, we continuously labor to subvert those proclaimed rights. Our truths turn out not to all that self-evident in each generation.
We are a nation of immigrants, all of whom on occasion fall into reasons to hate. (Blacks are descended from non-voluntary immigrants. The earliest migrants forded the Bering Strait.) After all, my mom can whup yours, my family is better, my clan is tops, my tribe has it down, and America Tis of Thee right or wrong love it or leave it, pry the flag pole from my cold dead hands.
When in the course of trying to figure things out, the democratic preamble rambles.
This mess of trouble will get worse. The lone gunman’s terroristic shooting up of historic Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in historic Charleston, South Carolina, during Wednesday evening Bible study June 17, 2015, is merely the latest attack.
It’s not just them.
It’s not just us.
Nine died in Charleston. Three people were killed April 13, 2014, in the shooting spree of a lone gunman outside the Jewish Community Center of Greater Kansas City. Another long gunman is awaiting trial for the Feb. 10, 2015, slaying of three young Muslim adults in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. The KC suspect killed no Jews. The North Carolina suspect found rationale with parking.
Lone is the only number you’ll ever do. Just because these are not conspiracies doesn’t mean mass delusion isn’t real enough to cowboy up.
The Philadelphia Inquirer reports the decision came after a petition drive and other pressure on the performer’s alma mater, which followed a flurry of news this fall on years’-old allegations of sexual assaults, for which Cosby never has been charged. The newspaper stated Dec. 1 that “at least 20 women” have accused him of drugging then having sexual relations with them.
Cosby, 77, said he resigned because “I have always wanted to do what would be in the best interests of the university and its students.”
Where do the Cosby allegations fit in journalism ethics? Media critics have noted the standard for entertainment journalism, where Cosby stories usually run, can be softer.
Yet the accusations have not been hidden. When the performer was sued, it was reported. When responsible media have published or aired general profiles of Cosby, the allegations have been included.
In November, two respected journalists have written that they wished they had placed more emphasis on this aspect when they wrote about him.
The ethics lesson here is balance but also appropriateness.
As an example, charges Bill Clinton perjured and concealed his “relations” with Monica Lewinsky brought about his 1998 impeachment in the House and the Senate’s acquittal in 1999. General profiles on the former president in the years since devote some space to the topic. Focused journalism, however, such as interviews targeting his views on foreign relations or his nonprofit works, give it no coverage.
Neither Carr nor Coates state in their commentaries that they should’ve confronted Cosby but that they wished they had done more research. That makes the following headlines curious.
“Bill Cosby Stays Silent amid New Allegations,” USA Today, Nov. 23
“What I Wish I’d Asked Bill Cosby: How I learned that Entertainment Journalists Can Play Hardball Too,” Salon.com, Nov. 20
“Bill Cosby Tries to Pressure an AP Reporter Into Editing Out Rape Allegations,” Newsweek, Nov. 20
“Bill Cosby Will Not Comment on Sexual Assault Allegations, Says Lawyer,” Variety, Nov. 16
Strong reporting includes interviewing all parties involved. Yet what is Bill Cosby going to say in 2014? Yes he did? No he didn’t? Something in between? If he spoke — he only issued a statement about his Temple resignation — would readers, listeners and viewers believe him?
Ethical journalists realize the Fourth Estate has no judiciary power, although the “court of public opinion” has thrived throughout history. That body has no Bible for sworn testimony; that’s what journalistic fact-finding is for.
Solid journalism, however, means more than mike-in-the-face: What did happen between Cosby and these women? Where was law enforcement at the time? What can be discovered from the civil litigation some of the women attempted? How did media mishandle the claims when they were first made?
Spring for journalists marks the end of contest entry season and the beginning of conferences and workshops. Heavy thinking threatens the daffodils.
Ethics committees of two groups, the Society of Professional Journalists and the Online News Association, are marking this climate change with proposals. SPJ’s is revising its Code of Ethics, last dolled up in 1996, and ONA’s panel wants a new approach it calls “Build Your Own Ethics Code.”
A key difference: SPJ will engrave its code in stone and ONA plans continual updating. One similarity is prominent: How ethics (singular noun) effects Internet news.
Or commentary, for that matter. (My gang, the National Society of Newspaper Columnists, has a Code of Conduct, set in 2009. Valid in any medium.)
A point by point breakdown can’t be done until ONA completes its list. Until then, here’s their links:
Even their postings’ titles (which I’ve edited for form) indicate a significant issue. Ethics has a reputation as the Law’s wayward brother — while the Law graduated with high honors and is out making a name for itself, ethics still is in school, partying with the attitude, “Whatever, Dude.”
If you can go to jail or lose a lawsuit, it’s the Law. Ethics runs into its brother and bounces off: It is the agreement we journalists have with our audience; it’s how news providers are trusted to be as complete and fair as possible in the moment and not too offensive. While the Law has exceptions, Ethics functions by its elasticity.
(This is not a blog post per se but an outline for a talk I’m giving to a class. It’s not a PowerPoint-like slide show, although a short video is included. It’s both for my use and for students if they wish to check links etc.)
I. The slaying for apparently 50 years has been a topic for sermons, and teen and undergrad discussions — “What has this country come to?” and the like.
A. It’s general ethics, not journalism ethics.
B. Until 10 years ago when it moved over to media ethics. “Kitty, 40 Years Later,” by Jim Rasenberger, The New York Times, Feb. 8, 2004
II. The story we all were told by NYT, March 27 and 28, 1964
Kew Gardens, Queens. 38 unnamed witnesses to fatal stabbing and rape, says police commish to metro editor, none tried to stop attack or call police. Suspect of this and other similar attacks: Winston Moseley. This victim, bar manager Catherine “Kitty” Genovese. It took him three separate attacks to kill her.
III. The uncovered story
Two attacks in 35-minute span. Witness Robert Mozer’s yells ended first attack, which is in the open; two others called police. Ambulance arrives at site of second attack, interior hall, neighbor Sophia Farrar holds a dying Genovese.
Witness Joseph Fink took a nap after first attack. Witness Karl Ross saw both attacks, called two friends to ask for advice, 2nd pal said come over then he called police.
IV. Principals – Journo
A.M. Rosenthal, 41, wrote his account Thirty-Eight Witnesses later in ’64, new edition in ’99. Main proponent of the Silent Witness angle.
NYC Police Commissioner Michael Murphy. Their lunch, March 23
Catherine “Kitty” Genovese, 28, bar manager, in a year-long gay relationship. Partner still alive.
Winston Moseley, 29, punch-card operator, African-American, married 2 kids. Also burglar. Confessed to this and another confirmed murder. Trial was over sanity. Eyewitnesses not called. Now 79, in prison. Escape in 1968, attacked one or two women before capture.
“Psychologists Bibb Latane and John Darley arrived at a counterintuitive conclusion: the greater the number of bystanders who view an emergency, the smaller the chance that any will intervene. People tend to feel a ‘diffusion of responsibility,'” says the Rasenberger 2004 article.
911 emergency number — The program began in 1968. The idea had been bandied about for years. Wikipedia doesn’t mention Genovese case.
This wasn’t good journalism, even in 1964. Ends do not justify the means. Can’t even say the exception proves the rule.
If now: Would you call 9-1-1 on your cell, and would it be before or after you shot some footage?