Beth A.'s Open Salon Blog

When the Line Is Blurred

Thu, 21 Oct 2010 22:10:10 -0400

A lot has been written and said about NPR's firing of Juan Williams, so much so that I hadn't planned on writing anything at all.

But then today two things happened: One, I finally got to hear more of the back story from NPR. Two, I had a longtime friend declare she would no longer be supporting NPR because she felt they were intolerant.

So here I go.

I'm a journalist. I've been one for, well, a long time. But every single publication I've worked for has had rules designed to maintain at least an illusion of neutrality. No campaign bumper stickers. No signs in your yard. No attending rallies or fundraisers unless you were on the job.

Some papers felt that endorsements put unfair pressure on reporters - after all, most readers don't know that the paper's editorial board is generally in a completely different place in the building - and the hierarchy of the staff. The average work-a-day beat reporter has no idea and no input into who their paper endorses. But they still face the ridicule of readers who fall on the opposite side of the editorial board's stance.

So some newspapers, on varying levels, try to make sure there's a modicum of objectivity. But more and more - especially on cable news networks - the line between journalist and commentator is blurred to the point of nonexistence. Opinion is presented as earnest truth, and unless you plan on spending the bulk of your time fact checking while you watch Glenn Beck, news consumers generally become opinion consumers.

So when a news organization comes down on the side of ethics and demands its reporters and staff remain neutral, it's sadly no longer the norm. It smacks of censorship to the general public, because it's completely alien as an idea. The thing is, it's what we should've been doing all along. We as a journalistic community allowed this to happen. It's incredibly sad, I think, that a news organization insisting on true objectivity is met with suspicion instead of welcomed as a relief from the conflicting and loud reports from either side of the divide.

NPR's stance on objectivity is not new. For instance, they have asked their correspondents to not attend rallies - even ones by satirists. And according to NPR's report this morning, it seems their problems with Juan Williams were ongoing. They had moved him from reporter to commentator as his comments became less news and more opinion. They requested that Fox no longer identify him as an NPR commentator when he appeared - a reasonable request when you consider he was being paid by Fox to appear there. He wasn't on NPR's dime - he was on Fox's. On NPR, he was to present fact. On Fox, he was there for his opinions. Different hats, different titles.

After hearing the NPR report, and having a whole day to digest it and read other reactions, I realized that Juan Williams didn't get fired for saying something about Muslims. He got fired for saying something incendiary - sound bite or no - on a talk show with an incendiary host while being identified as being with NPR.

Where I work now, I had to sign an agreement that if I was representing or using my company's name, I had to behave in a way that would reflect well on the company. Most companies require that.

The First Amendment guaranteed Juan Williams the right to say whatever he wanted. But what many forget is the fact that the First Amendment isn't an olly-olly-oxen-free. Free speech comes with responsibility, and with the knowledge that you can say what you want, but there may be consequences. And it certainly doesn't preclude your employer from requiring you to maintain certain standards when you use their name as your foot in the door, or your calling card.

When Sorry Doesn't Mean Sorry

Wed, 30 Jun 2010 01:06:24 -0400

When I was in fifth grade, I remember standing on the playground one day, near the back of the field, where honeysuckle and this one tree that always spewed sap grew. A fight had broken out, because one girl said another girl was ugly. Not just lowercase ugly, but the upper case kind of ugly you spell out, slowly, tauntingly.

It was brutal, wretched fisticuffs. Fistfuls of hair. Biting. Eye gouging. By the time a teacher reached the nether regions of the playground, there was actual, bona fide blood involved.

After sorting out the reason for the melee, the teacher insisted the insulter apologize to the insultee.

The insulter looked at the other girl, grinned in the cocksure way only a girl sporting a shiner can, and said, "I'm sorry you're ugly."

I'm reminded of this incident for two reasons: Joe Barton's infamous nonapology he's since taken back, and another brouhaha that I've found myself embroiled in, with a Dallas columnist.

This columnist, Steve Blow, wrote a blog post today that has since been taken down. But you can get the general feel for it here, at another blog I write for.

Blow was writing about a story in the paper that employs him - the Dallas Morning News. The story was about a woman who came forward to say that a Catholic priest had touched her inappropriately when she was 12.

In the post, titled "Refreshing Pervy Priest," Blow said, "This is sad to say, but it's almost refreshing to read about a priest accused of good, old-fashioned heterosexual perviness. The dreadful stuff between priests and boys has been going on for so long that I almost forgot that some priests have more mainstream sexual hangups."

He then adds that this fact is why priests should be allowed to marry.

Rightfully so, several people took him to task, including me. The post was wrong on so many levels. For one, the word refreshing has no place in a discussion of molestation. Two, wanting to molest young girls is not a mainstream sexual hangup. Three, married people molest children, too.

He didn't get it. First, he told everyone we just didn't get his humor. Then he "apologized."

But, just like Joe Barton, his apology was more in the vein of "sorry you're so ugly," than "sorry I said you were ugly."

He wrote:

"If you have to explain humor, it has failed. My attempt here at some sardonic humor has obviously failed with a number of readers. I apologize. No offense was intended - except toward the pervy priests of any persuasion."

In other words, "I'm sorry you people are daft and can't understand my obviously sophisticated sense of humor, where molestation jokes are real gut-busters. I wish I had smarter readers."

But it would be one thing if a few readers and a few media professionals found his choice of words distasteful. But tonight, everyone learned that the victim found Blow's words hurtful as well.

Mary O'Dell told the Dallas CBS affiliate that she had been a fan of Steve Blow's work before she read today's blog post. Now she feels hurt that he would make light of a situation that has brought her sleepless nights, agony, and pain.

And even though he "apologized," she too, thinks it wasn't enough.

"You're a man of words," O'Dell said. "You ought to be watching them a whole lot more carefully than that."

But I think the most hurtful thing is that many don't see anything wrong with Steve Blow's blog post. They don't see the homophobic undertones, the misogynistic sleight of hand. It was a funny observation, they insist, and everyone that is all worked up about it lives in a world frought with political correctness.

Someone needs to go back in time and tell that to 12-year-old Mary O'Dell, and her brothers and sisters in pain. Because I'm assuming they felt, and still feel, nothing akin to refreshment.

Timetables and Game Shows Don't Bring You Love

Tue, 9 Mar 2010 12:03:10 -0500

I tried, really hard, to keep my opinions about the Bachelor franchise to myself. So many of my friends enjoy it, that it seemed like I was taking the whole thing too seriously.

Never mind the fact that I can't comprehend a world that finds getting a mate in front of a television camera whilst dating 20 people at once an adequate homage to the sanctity of marriage, but two men or two women who have been in committed relationships for years cannot get married at all.

Let's put that aside for a minute, and instead talk about something we can definitely all agree with (I hope) - the odds of finding a lasting, happy, adult relationship are slim to none if you don't enter the process with the right mindset. Marriage is not a game show. It's not a ratings bonanza. And anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is either a pimp or an ABC producer.

Or, well, a producer at Dallas' CW33, apparently. Ever hear of "Project Husband?" It's new. Lisa has the venue. Now she needs the husband.

What?

Aside from being a shameless gimmick to get ratings and let some Dallas-area woman pose in a tank top and have her dating life filmed, it's offensive.

For one, why not a man? Why do we have to have a woman be the desperate one with a timeline?

And two, relationships leading to marriage need the chance to grow organically - not according to a pre-determined timeline. Some people meet, fall in love, and become certain of the status and health of their relationship quickly. Some take a little longer to be sure. But setting a specific deadline for finding a mate seems like you are dooming yourself to settling.

There are so many things that can make it hard to stay married. The economy. The rigors of childrearing. Sickness.

Why in the Sam Hill would you add, "I had to marry him or lose my deposit" to the mix?

But the Bachelor franchise - and this outing by CW33 - wouldn't happen if there weren't viewers. Sure, you may think it's entertainment, but is it also an indicator as to why the rate for divorce is so high in this country?

We just flat out do not value the sanctity of marriage. And if we don't, what was that argument, again, against gay marriage?

Dear Ben Roethlisberger:

Tue, 9 Mar 2010 11:03:27 -0500

The first time you were accused of rape, I was willing to kinda give you the benefit of the doubt. You sounded so righteously indignant. The alleged victim had filed suit in civil court, instead of reporting the whole thing to the authorities.

But a second rape allegation? Listen, buddy, even if you didn't do it, it's a wake up call. Maybe you don't know jack about women. Maybe you don't know enough about the seedier side of human nature. Or maybe you don't know what "no" looks like.

So let's review a few things so you don't get a third rape accusation lobbed at you.

1) The drunk cannot consent to sex. So if she's inebriated, it doesn't mean she's good to go anywhere other than a cab ride home. Alone. Get her digits if you actually liked her, and call her the next day. She'll appreciate the gentlemanly gesture.

2) A girl's clothing is not an invitation for sex. You know what is an invitation to sex? An adult, sober woman saying, "I'd like to have sex with you," or some variation thereof.

3) "No" doesn't mean "I'd make an exception for you, you famous NFL quarterback."

4) Say the lady is good to go, sober, and is ripping your button-fly jeans open with her teeth. While she's busy, think for a minute, "What kind of woman is this? Would she want my synaptically challenged brain stem if I drove a front-loader instead of playing for the Steelers?" If the answer to the latter is no, well, chances are she may try to shake you down later, either by saying you raped her, consulting with a tabloid, or the time-honored way of permanently getting money from a professional athlete: Having unprotected sex so she can get knocked up and have an 18 year payment plan.

5) Only have threesomes, and check ID's at the door. That way you have a witness.

I hope my tips help you in some way avoid a third rape allegation.

Sincerely,

How to Give Rick Perry a Run for His Money

Thu, 25 Feb 2010 20:02:45 -0500

Oh, Kay, I kept waiting for you to really call out your incumbent opponent for Texas governor - Rick Perry. Sure, you poo-poo'd his Trans Texas Corridor project, but you did it with all the useless venom of a lady whispering behind her hand about a companion's scuffed Manolo's.

Politics, as you should know, is a blood sport. It's more Mel Gibson in Braveheart than Gwyneth Paltrow in Emma. Yet, it feels as if your campaign is disjointed and malaise-ridden. And to top it off, Rick Perry has clay feet. You could easily topple him, yet you won't. He's the worst kind of politician, which, as I told someone else today, is like saying he's the worst kind of ass pimple.

But for giggles, lemme tell you how to beat (or at least come a lot closer to it) Rick Perry:

1. You went to the right of Perry. When you did, you found Debra Medina already comfy there. You don't have the record to be right of Perry. Your core demographic should've been centerist to mid-Perry. There are a ton of voters out there looking for a conservative with common sense that isn't afraid to sometimes wiggle to the left a little.

2. Perry has a literal metric crap ton of things to ding him on. The death penalty and his refusal to investigate the Willingham case. His inability to be proactive when it comes to a review of death penalty cases after Texas began leading the nation in exonerations. A governor interested in justice would've called a moratorium on executions until every case was reviewed. And we haven't even started on the TYC or all the issues with CPS. Or the fact that he's still refusing to pardon a man who died in prison and was posthumously exonerated.

3. Perry keeps talking about your use of earmarks. ANSWER HIM. Instead of that cockamamie dead issue of the Trans Texas Corridor you've beat like a dead horse already on the glue cart to get the ranchers all riled up, if you really want to connect with your potential rural constituents, tell them how you used earmarks to help communities like theirs to build this, fund that. Point out to Perry that these earmarks were on the behalf of Texas.

4. Call Perry on his hypocrisy. He claims he hasn't taken federal dollars, but no, what he's done is loudly proclaimed he wouldn't, squawked about secession, and then quietly applied for federal funds anyway. He is a lying liar who lies, and well, you probably are, too, but you could at least call him on his, because it's so very easy.

5. Grow a pair.

It is, honestly, probably too late for you to win, even if this thing goes to a runoff. So, Bill White, lemme say that nearly everything above also applies to you. The most recent Pew study about millennials pointed out that they self-identify overwhelmingly as Liberals, and as Democrats. Yet, they are probably unlikely to vote in a non-presidential election - unless you can fire them up. Perry's reckless disregard for justice and human life would do just that.

Getting their ire to simmer won't be enough. Go forth, and conflagrate.