Privacy, Bias, Hypocrisy, Free Speech

I hate the movie ‘The Wizard of Oz.’ Skip the fact with a last name West I was comical fodder for a few idiots.  ’Wicked Witch of the West,’ they cackled.  A few were brazen, changing the W to a B.  They didn’t know I don’t suffer fools.  Fools just suffer.  No, I hated the movie because when the wizard is revealed to be ‘just a man,’ all innocence is stripped.  The rose-colored glasses are removed.

Fortunately, you’re not innocents.  I’m not a movie, and I love to strip emperor’s clothes.

Tiger.

Don’t tune out.  This isn’t a discussion on his women, the 911 calls, Elin, sponsors, golf, the jokes, or anything I haven’t mentioned.  No, I want to talk about the much bigger issues raised by the Tiger scandal - media bias/integrity and free speech.

Scandals are going to be covered, ad nauseum.  But when the coverage takes an arrogant sanctimonious tone, I scream, ‘Who died and made you God Almighty Jr.’ Right now I KNOW you’re picturing certain writers/reporters.  They’re just ugly, beyond ugly.  As Fox sportswriter Jason Whitlock* says in his article – “Tiger’s real crime? Not playing the media’s game“ -  “I have no gripe with the blogs and the gossip rags… They’re making it rain on bim-hos solely for profit and titillation. I respect that…My problem is with the ax-grinding alleged journalists…Pierce should’ve opened his column by admitting he dislikes Woods and his opinion is skewed by that bias.”

Whether Jason is right, that Tiger did not play the media’s game, I do not know.

What does seem evident, though, is those reporting on Tiger, had some issues/biases, that would make a few of us look askance at the veracity of what they wrote.

That beyond Tiger, some writers/reporters had/have issues/biases, been/are involved in situations, that if known at the time, may/would cause folks to be dubious of what they wrote/write.

Straight news.  Scandal.  It doesn’t matter.  Anyone touting to be a serious writer/journalist/pundit/news channel should disclose a bias/issue/situation when it affects or could appear to affect the fairness/veracity of what they write.  In other words, make the public go ‘hmmmm.’

I can hear my journalist friends screaming now.  Their impropriety is being questioned, attacked.   You got that right.  Worse, if there’s a sniff that you’re really trying to protect some financial and/or professional interests behind a pseudo shield of ‘freedom of the press’ and/or when there’s a need to leak confidential grand jury testimony ‘the public’s right to know,’ Courts and Congress should not be your savior.  We see through that.  Bullcrumpashriftadroodle.  While the work the media does is admirable, let us not confuse the work with the worker who is so very human.  Like us.

It really just comes down to integrity.

If you’ve got it, then you don’t have a problem proving it.

This is important because we listen to what the media says. What we hear formulates how we think.  Thinking sways the choices we make, and if a democracy is based on freedom of choice and those choices are biased/improper/rigged, then it really isn’t a democracy.

And that’s the scary issue.

It’s one thing when the media is choosing whether to report Tiger’s infidelities or Shaq’s.  (By the way what’s up with that mainstream, hello ESPN?  Shaq has an affair with Gilbert Arenas’, his fellow NBA player’s, fiancé, among a stream of alleged other players’ women, and there’s barely coverage?  Is it because it’s a Black on Black on Black on Hispanic crime?).  It’s more affecting when the story choice and how it’s reported regards things that impact our daily lives – elected officials, referendums, the Iraq War.

And this power that controls the minds of many is concentrated in the hands of a few – essentially, GE, Walt Disney, News Corp., Time Warner, Viacom, CBS, Tribune, Gannett, Clear Channel, Bertelsmann, Citadel Broadcasting, Cumulus, Cox, Scripps, New York Times, Washington Post, Media News, and Hearst.   And Rupert Murdoch, who received an FCC waiver of media cross-ownership rules (through 2008, a single company was prevented from owning both a TV or radio station and newspaper in the same top 20 media market) now wants those rules further relaxed.

Absolutely, not.

When the voice for many is being filtered through the hands of a few, you hear the same thing just under a different umbrella – a non-diverse umbrella. At all costs free unconstrained uncontained unbiased speech must be protected.  Presently a case before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals is challenging the FCC’s loosening of the media cross-ownership rule.  With a new Democratic controlled FCC, the FCC has asked the Court to hold its decision until the FCC has its Quadrennial Review of the rule in 2010.  Although the public comment period has passed, we can still let the FCC know further relaxing of media cross-ownership rules is anti-free speech as concentrating so much media power in the hands of few does not represent the best interests of diversity, in a country that is 34% nonHispanic White.  fccinfo@fcc.gov

*A. Renee’ West discloses Jason Whitlock did not disclose he was fired from ESPN after he disparaged two ESPN colleagues.  A. Renee’ considered ESPN to be petty in that firing.

A. Renee’ West also discloses she has audited several media properties.  She feels most put profit before editorial content and customer technology.