Bag Walking on Water

What is it about floods that force TV reporters to stage ridiculous gimmicks to tell their stories? Last year on NBC’s Today show reporter Michelle Kosinski was caught faking the depth of water as she paddled a canoe in a live report. Immediately after she went live, two men walked right by her, showing that the water in which she was paddling was mere inches deep.

You would think that networks would have learned their lesson that these tricks damage their credibility.

We are currently in the midst of the worst Midwest flooding in recorded history. There is no need to hype the story. It is huge. There are tons of video elements available to producers that tell the story way better than reporters standing up to their chests in water.

John Stewart’s Daily show has made hay with this phenomenon. He recently showed a progression of depths in which reporters were standing. The sequence included reporters from NBC, FOX and CNN. Stewart continued by showing CNN reporter Susan Roesgen who had fallen in slick Wisconsin mud. The anchor said that they were showing the video, of their reporter trying to get back to her feet, to show the conditions that people are dealing with. The fact that it turned into a parody speaks to the damage to the networks’ credibility.

It might not have been Journalism 201, but it was at least Journalism 202, when they taught us not to publish or broadcast things that are ill-advised. The idea is that viewers may think that it is okay. In the case of walking in floodwaters it isn’t.

Atlanta Fire Department Captain Bill May told me that they warn people away from walking into floodwater for a list of reasons: inability to determine depth, hazards below the surface (holes, sharp objects, roots), poisonous snakes and insects, environmental hazards (sewage, garbage, chemicals) and the most feared reason, strong currents. There are cases where drains have opened or dammed water has broken free and the water suddenly surges.

CNN sent me this statement when I asked about the advisability of standing in flood water: “As you can imagine, an organization like CNN has covered events like the Asian tsunami, Hurricane Katrina and countless natural disasters around the world for 28 years and our correspondents have the most up to date equipment enabling us to take viewers to areas that can only be covered at the center of the story.”

I have a suggestion for the television news decision makers. If you want your reporters in the “center of the story,” have them filling sand bags with the besieged residents of the Midwest while they do their live shots.

Laura Ingraham suspends the Constitution

Laura Ingraham, radio talk show host and sometimes TV guest host does not believe in the checks and balances provided in the United States Constitution. FOX News has given her a platform to express her views.

The US Supreme Court ruled June12, 2008 that detainees held at Guantanamo Bay have the right to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts. In reaction to that, Ingraham, appearing as guest host on Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, said that if she were President Bush, with only months to go in his administration, she would ignore the Supreme Court.

The issue surrounds the concept of Habeus Corpus. This ancient cornerstone of our judicial system ensures that the government cannot hold people without charge, or without a hearing to determine whether the imprisonment is justified. Some of the detainees at Guantanamo have been held for six years without a hearing.

One can argue that these might be, or are, dangerous people and that they are a threat to our security if they are released. The U.S. Constitution prohibits suspension of habeus corpus rights “unless in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

People like Ingraham assume that the public safety might be at risk if Guantanamo detainees are released. She might be right, but how does she know, if they have not had a hearing? One could argue that after being held without charges for six years a person could be more of a threat.

George Will, on ABC’s This Week argued that to give these people a hearing might strengthen the government’s case against them and strengthen world support of current American policy. If they are that dangerous, then let the world know how bad they are. If they are being held for good reason, let the world know.

But Ms. Ingraham’s comments go beyond arguing the legalities under the Constitution. She advocates throwing out the Constitution. To her and hence to her broadcast mouthpiece, Fox News, no matter what disclaimer they broadcast, separation of powers is to be ignored should she deem it inconvenient.

In the play A Man for all Seasons, Sir. Thomas More says, “Yes, I’d give the Devil the benefit of the law, for my own safety’s sake!” Ms. Ingraham should consider where she would be if an Administration felt that advocating throwing out the constitution warranted being held without charge, perhaps because it constituted rebellion. In that case, I would fight for her right to a fair hearing.

CNN's Own Smoking Gun

There is no case to be made about the complicity of the news media in the selling of the invasion of Iraq. The case is already made. They plead guilty as charged. Check out this web site: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/08/iraq.debate . (Also see how long it takes CNN to take it down. Not to worry. It is saved.)

First note the URL. It ends in “iraq.debate.” Where is the debate? Senior managers at CNN considered this a debate. The story is about the PR campaign that the Administration was conducting at the time, the one that Scott McClellan wrote about in his recent book.

One half a sentence refers to a weapons inspector who says that the rest of the article is overblown. Even that is discounted in the other half of the sentence, as if CNN is laying out a straight flush against a pair of deuces, “the vice president, two Cabinet secretaries, the national security advisor and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff pressed the point that a military intervention could be the only way to topple Saddam’s regime.” The rest of the article details their claims with no questioning.

The article includes that week’s high level TV tour of those Administration officials and their comments about aluminum tubes and smoking guns in the shape of mushroom clouds.

Note the box on the right, with the banner “Case Against Iraq.” At least it is accurate. This is the prosecution. Where is the defense argument in the “case?” Where is the box that says “Case Against Attacking Iraq?”

The inspector who says this case was overblown and his evidence should have been given half the article, not half a loaded sentence.

Talk about a smoking gun! This article is still hot, five and a half years later.