Media fast with opinion, not facts

One of the not-so-pleasant benefits of being around for a while, is that I can recall a number of very high-profile news events – many of which I’d prefer to forget.

   Sadly, this past Saturday’s mass shooting in Tucson, Ariz., isn’t the first and, regrettably, probably won’t be the last such event.

   I’ve been alive for the shootings of John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., Ronald Reagan, John Lennon, Congressman Leo Ryan and others.

   I’ve also been around long enough to know the more traditional media of my youth and more traditional standards in their general reporting on such tragedies.

   I first heard of the Arizona shooting Saturday afternoon from none other than HCP columnist and 700 WLW radio host Eric Deters. My son and I were riding back to my in-laws’ home off Harrison Avenue on Cincinnati’s west side.

   My father-in-law quickly switched his TV from a college basketball game to CNN. We were told, in alternating and conflicting reports, that Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was: Shot and killed. Shot, but alive. “Confirmed” dead, again. Alive, again. Both dead and alive in a simultaneous audio/visual report, in which the announcer said one thing and the headline crawler at the bottom of the flat screen TV said another. And, finally, alive and in critical condition.

   While this may have been the network’s weekend “B” team, its collective coverage on this Saturday afternoon was unconscionable in its rush to report – incorrectly, at that time – the congresswoman’s demise. CNN attributed some of its coverage to NPR, which apologized for its inaccuracies.

   I am told that Fox News and other networks were similarly inaccurate and contradictory in their respective reports. I chose to watch CNN, so I cannot confirm or deny how other media reported the criminal acts of a deranged 22-year-old gunman whose name I was happily ignorant of on Jan. 7.

   One other thing that ought to gall television news viewers is this: CNN also rushed to air a telephone interview with a so-called Arizona journalist. This “journalist,” with no more fact-based knowledge than the proverbial man in the moon, quickly concluded that the “right-wing” conservatives, TEA Party activists and radio talk show hosts somehow played a part in the mass executions. (Never let the facts get in the way of a story, I suppose.)

     I watched this interview with my son and three other adults, all of whom agreed that the rush to convict a political party and an activist movement was more than a little premature. God forbid our courts operated in such a fashion. We’d all be found guilty of something – or of thinking of something – without due process.

   Never mind the facts. The gunman just had to be a “right-wing nutjob.”

In the words of the Paul McCartney song, Let it Be.

   Except that, similar to the Salem witch trials, there’s been no evidence to support the hasty conclusion.

   Instead of letting law enforcement do its job – and it is – some media prefer to form an opinion based on their hopeful outcome.

   Granted, with comments from law enforcement such as those made by Pima County Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik, it’s no small wonder the liberal media took the ball and ran with it. Dupnik, a 74-year-old Democrat, who, thankfully, is not handling the investigation, said, just hours after the tragedy: “To try to inflame the public on a daily basis, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, has an impact on people, especially people who are unbalanced people to begin with.”

   Seems like a premature indictment to me.

   Sheriff Dupnik also admitted that the maniacal gunman had made death threats before.

   But this incident just had to be the act, either directly or indirectly, of the Right. It had to be. So went the media’s thinking.

   Numerous “news” media pointed out a Sarah Palin website that almost a year ago listed Rep. Giffords’ congressional district (and other districts) that Republicans hoped to win in the November midterm elections. A map of the district had crosshairs symbols, causing a quick and easy correlation between the shooting and the Alaska Republican.

   Of course, those same media “professionals” conveniently ignored that one popular left-wing website had targeted Rep. Giffords for her moderate and bipartisan efforts, and wrote of putting her in the “bull’s-eye.”

   Crosshairs from the Right. A bull’s-eye from the Left. The former is national news, the latter is widely ignored.

   After we posted the story on our website Saturday (yes, The Highland County Press works weekends and holidays), we had several e-mails from the usual sources. No less than three of our regular contributors weighed in that the gunman was somehow influenced by the Right. These comments (none of which were posted on our website) were made late Saturday and very early Sunday before investigations from law enforcement reports painted an altogether different picture.

   As the media’s weekend “B” teams gave way to the Monday first string, we learned that the deranged gunman, with a history of mental problems, had been rejected by the military, kicked out of a community college, and leaned toward Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler for his equally deranged inspiration.

   “In all my years as a working journalist, I have never seen more shallow analysis from liberal commentators than I have now, with this terrible tragedy in Arizona,” former news reporter and the author of the best-seller “Bias” Bernard Goldberg said this week.

   The initial reporting of the Arizona shooting left me thinking of a great quote from one of my favorite writers, P.J. O’Rourke: “I’m not a liberal, so I’m not an expert on things I know nothing about.”

   The national media would do all of us a big favor if they would refrain from speculation and opinion disguised as news. There’s a reason why the word “Opinion” appears at the top of this page. It is, quite simply, a signal to separate thoughtful commentary from reports of the day’s news. That’s how it was done in the old days.

   A big problem with today’s electronic media is that they rush to report – even when they don’t know spit from shinola about what they’re reporting on. Speculation and proselytizing have replaced the five Ws and one H (who, what, where, when, why and how) that any grade-school journalist wannabe ought to have learned by age 10.

   On Sunday, The New York Times published a Page 1 story, “Bloodshed puts new focus on vitriol in politics.”

   However, Marc Thiessen pointed out in The Washington Post: “Nowhere did it mention the vitriol hurled at TEA Party activists, who are routinely derided to as ‘tea baggers’ and racists, and now stand accused of incitement to murder. If you want an example of the lack of civility plaguing our political discourse, look no further than this weekend’s shameful efforts to use this tragedy to demonize the TEA Party.”

   One upon a time, we blamed murderers for their murders. Now, we blame everyone but the killer. But guess what? It’s usually the killer.

   Rory Ryan is publisher and editor of The Highland County Press.

One of the not-so-pleasant benefits of being around for a while, is that I can recall a number of very high-profile news events – many of which I’d prefer to forget.

   Sadly, this past Saturday’s mass shooting in Tucson, Ariz., isn’t the first and, regrettably, probably won’t be the last such event.

   I’ve been alive for the shootings of John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., Ronald Reagan, John Lennon, Congressman Leo Ryan and others.

   I’ve also been around long enough to know the more traditional media of my youth and more traditional standards in their general reporting on such tragedies.

   I first heard of the Arizona shooting Saturday afternoon from none other than HCP columnist and 700 WLW radio host Eric Deters. My son and I were riding back to my in-laws’ home off Harrison Avenue on Cincinnati’s west side.

   My father-in-law quickly switched his TV from a college basketball game to CNN. We were told, in alternating and conflicting reports, that Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was: Shot and killed. Shot, but alive. “Confirmed” dead, again. Alive, again. Both dead and alive in a simultaneous audio/visual report, in which the announcer said one thing and the headline crawler at the bottom of the flat screen TV said another. And, finally, alive and in critical condition.

   While this may have been the network’s weekend “B” team, its collective coverage on this Saturday afternoon was unconscionable in its rush to report – incorrectly, at that time – the congresswoman’s demise. CNN attributed some of its coverage to NPR, which apologized for its inaccuracies.

   I am told that Fox News and other networks were similarly inaccurate and contradictory in their respective reports. I chose to watch CNN, so I cannot confirm or deny how other media reported the criminal acts of a deranged 22-year-old gunman whose name I was happily ignorant of on Jan. 7.

   One other thing that ought to gall television news viewers is this: CNN also rushed to air a telephone interview with a so-called Arizona journalist. This “journalist,” with no more fact-based knowledge than the proverbial man in the moon, quickly concluded that the “right-wing” conservatives, TEA Party activists and radio talk show hosts somehow played a part in the mass executions. (Never let the facts get in the way of a story, I suppose.)

     I watched this interview with my son and three other adults, all of whom agreed that the rush to convict a political party and an activist movement was more than a little premature. God forbid our courts operated in such a fashion. We’d all be found guilty of something – or of thinking of something – without due process.

   Never mind the facts. The gunman just had to be a “right-wing nutjob.”

In the words of the Paul McCartney song, Let it Be.

   Except that, similar to the Salem witch trials, there’s been no evidence to support the hasty conclusion.

   Instead of letting law enforcement do its job – and it is – some media prefer to form an opinion based on their hopeful outcome.

   Granted, with comments from law enforcement such as those made by Pima County Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik, it’s no small wonder the liberal media took the ball and ran with it. Dupnik, a 74-year-old Democrat, who, thankfully, is not handling the investigation, said, just hours after the tragedy: “To try to inflame the public on a daily basis, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, has an impact on people, especially people who are unbalanced people to begin with.”

   Seems like a premature indictment to me.

   Sheriff Dupnik also admitted that the maniacal gunman had made death threats before.

   But this incident just had to be the act, either directly or indirectly, of the Right. It had to be. So went the media’s thinking.

   Numerous “news” media pointed out a Sarah Palin website that almost a year ago listed Rep. Giffords’ congressional district (and other districts) that Republicans hoped to win in the November midterm elections. A map of the district had crosshairs symbols, causing a quick and easy correlation between the shooting and the Alaska Republican.

   Of course, those same media “professionals” conveniently ignored that one popular left-wing website had targeted Rep. Giffords for her moderate and bipartisan efforts, and wrote of putting her in the “bull’s-eye.”

   Crosshairs from the Right. A bull’s-eye from the Left. The former is national news, the latter is widely ignored.

   After we posted the story on our website Saturday (yes, The Highland County Press works weekends and holidays), we had several e-mails from the usual sources. No less than three of our regular contributors weighed in that the gunman was somehow influenced by the Right. These comments (none of which were posted on our website) were made late Saturday and very early Sunday before investigations from law enforcement reports painted an altogether different picture.

   As the media’s weekend “B” teams gave way to the Monday first string, we learned that the deranged gunman, with a history of mental problems, had been rejected by the military, kicked out of a community college, and leaned toward Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler for his equally deranged inspiration.

   “In all my years as a working journalist, I have never seen more shallow analysis from liberal commentators than I have now, with this terrible tragedy in Arizona,” former news reporter and the author of the best-seller “Bias” Bernard Goldberg said this week.

   The initial reporting of the Arizona shooting left me thinking of a great quote from one of my favorite writers, P.J. O’Rourke: “I’m not a liberal, so I’m not an expert on things I know nothing about.”

   The national media would do all of us a big favor if they would refrain from speculation and opinion disguised as news. There’s a reason why the word “Opinion” appears at the top of this page. It is, quite simply, a signal to separate thoughtful commentary from reports of the day’s news. That’s how it was done in the old days.

   A big problem with today’s electronic media is that they rush to report – even when they don’t know spit from shinola about what they’re reporting on. Speculation and proselytizing have replaced the five Ws and one H (who, what, where, when, why and how) that any grade-school journalist wannabe ought to have learned by age 10.

   On Sunday, The New York Times published a Page 1 story, “Bloodshed puts new focus on vitriol in politics.”

   However, Marc Thiessen pointed out in The Washington Post: “Nowhere did it mention the vitriol hurled at TEA Party activists, who are routinely derided to as ‘tea baggers’ and racists, and now stand accused of incitement to murder. If you want an example of the lack of civility plaguing our political discourse, look no further than this weekend’s shameful efforts to use this tragedy to demonize the TEA Party.”

   Once upon a time, we blamed murderers for their murders. Now, we blame everyone but the killer. But guess what? It’s usually the killer.

   Rory Ryan is publisher and editor of The Highland County Press.