skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Rep. John Fleming (R-LA) might think twice before agreeing to another appearance on MSNBC. What's to be gained from discussing issues with an interviewer whose mind is the political equivalent of a black hole? Credit Fleming for trying, but he must realize that MSNBC is nothing more than an outlet for left-wing activism.
MSNBC's Chris Jansing scolded Rep. Fleming for opposing Democrat tax policy. Jansing asked Fleming to explain his own high income -- his business interests gross $6 million annually -- but paid no attention to his answer. Fleming took more than his "fair share" and that's all that mattered. The condescending Jansing continued to prod Rep. Fleming:
You do understand, congressman, that the average person out there who's making maybe 40, 50, $60,000 out there, when they hear you only have $400,000 left over, it's not exactly a sympathetic position. You understand that?
It's difficult to tolerate someone so arrogant in their ignorance as Chris Jansing. An honest interviewer would've at least listened to Rep. Fleming's explanation of how his gross receipts are dispersed, especially since she raised the issue. But not Chris Jansing; she heard from Fleming only what she wanted to hear. Like so many journalists she played the role of ideological puppet, as if the DNC had a hand in her back.
Sadly, Chris is partially correct. Too many Americans aren't sympathetic when a deceitful, immoral, and fiscally irresponsible ideology deploys government to steal their neighbor's earnings. And I can give her one big reason why. Look around your newsroom, Chris. Then look around the newsrooms at the vast majority of broadcast and print media. Finally, Chris, look in your own mirror.
Journalism sold out long ago. Rather than providing balanced information, journalists promote a vision in which one person's failure is the result of another's achievement. The predominant American media now serves an ideology bent on expanding the State, making it no different from the operatives at TASS and Pravda during the Soviet Union's heyday. You understand that, Chris?
Thinly veiled media attacks on achievement are common and predictable. Thus the question isn't how to reform the media, but how to undo the petty jealousies and animus toward achievement Democrats and their media apologists have created. As long as this mindset exists politicians will parlay class envy into electoral success, never fully explaining who the "greedy rich" are or what constitutes their "fair share."
Certainly Chris Jansing's brand of journalism is secure in the First Amendment, wherein she and her colleagues can compromise their profession to their heart's content. But there's a funny thing about freedom; it runs both ways. Those of us in the great unwashed are equally free to criticize media propagandists whenever they're encountered.
Achievement has its attackers. But let it be known this day, achievement has its defenders, too.
The Constitution’s First Amendment clearly and properly protects the press from government intrusion. However, does the First Amendment allow reporters to ignore laws, or guarantee their access to a citizen’s every move? Ask Sarah Palin.
Palin recently made news for reasons other than her unusual version of Paul Revere’s ride. The controversy centered on her One Nation Tour, whose bus drivers apparently didn’t win any safe driving awards. Palin’s drivers ran red lights, recklessly exceeded speed limits, and changed lanes without signaling.
Ignoring traffic laws isn’t best practice, but it’s hardly unique. Drive a mile on the nation’s highways and you’ll witness similar, or worse, disregard for traffic laws. The question is, why reporters are so familiar with the One Nation Tour’s driving habits? If you answered, “The reporters were doing the same things,” take a gold star.
Reporters committed the same traffic violations for which they criticized Palin’s troupe. Even while describing the experience as “harrowing,” reporters remained quite blind to their own role in creating dangerous situations. Even in today’s warped social climate, where traditional standards are deemed passé, two wrongs still won’t make a right. Reporters are no more immune from traffic laws than are Palin’s bus drivers.
However, reporters excused their part in creating a “rolling menace” as the price required for keeping pace with Palin. Palin’s advisors failed to divulge the tour’s schedule. Lacking the itinerary, reporters had no alternative but to trail the One Nation Tour at all cost. What a load of bull!
The lack of an itinerary provides no excuse for reporters to exacerbate the traffic dangers blamed on Palin. In fact, the media is just as guilty as the Palin entourage, if not more. The media’s zeal to cover Palin is predicated not on idealistic notions of journalistic integrity or public disclosure but on the hope she will commit an embarrassing faux pas. What’s more, the media has no right of access to Sarah Palin’s itinerary.
“But the fourth estate has an obligation to keep tabs on politicians, government figures, and candidates,” journalists may counter. I agree; that’s why the Constitution recognizes the free press. The media should scrutinize everyone who fills, or seeks to fill, public positions. As Thomas Jefferson once said, “When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property.”
But Palin isn’t filling a public trust. She is no longer the Republican nominee for Vice President, the Governor of Alaska, or the Mayor of Wasilla. Sarah Palin hasn’t declared her interest in any public office either. She’s a media personality no doubt. But she isn’t a public official whose decisions can directly affect our liberty. Anyone who patronizes her does so voluntarily. Therefore, reporters have as much right to your local barber’s itinerary as they do Sarah Palin’s.
It’s truly amazing the lengths to which the media will go to cover every movement of a woman they routinely label as the world’s biggest idiot. If Sarah Palin is as dumb and irrelevant as the media claims, why cover her tour at all? Why not simply let her go her way in anonymity? Such an approach, if adopted, might cause reporters to miss an opportunity to portray Palin as the total loon they believe her to be. No wonder she didn’t grant journalists access to her itinerary.
Reporting on the whereabouts of celebrities -- and Palin is a celebrity -- isn’t the reason the First Amendment protects the free press. The media’s right to investigate politicians and bureaucrats who directly affect America’s liberty is unquestionable. Should Palin again seek or assume a public trust, she’ll become fair game. Until then the media enjoys no First Amendment access to her agenda and no right of any kind to mimic poor driving habits.
Our politically correct media culture demands immediate confession. Any offense, real or perceived, sends damage control teams rushing for microphones, issuing apologies in all directions. Seldom will common sense prevail, especially if it contradicts a good story. Bring in Ines Sainz.
Inez is the female sports reporter who became the target of “locker room” commentary when she entered the New York Jets’ locker room. The PC media culture immediately circled the wagons around Inez, condemning the crude and boorish behavior the Jets players and coaches exhibited.
Yet the question remained, was Sainz harassed or not? At first glance she appeared to be offended by the various hoots and whistles that hailed her arrival in the world of the New York Jets. But, within a few days, Sainz refuted the harassment claims. She told the New York Daily News, “I want to make clear that in no moment did I even feel offended, much less at risk or in danger while there.”
It turned out that a colleague and the Association for Women in Sports Media contributed to turning a rather minor incident into a world-wide frenzy.
Now let’s be frank. Ines Sainz is a woman of rare features. She’s exceptionally pretty with a gorgeous figure. But none of those qualities is an excuse for grown men to behave like horny high-school kids. Jets personnel are responsible for their actions regardless of the situation.
In a perfect world Ines Sainz could strip naked and wiggle her caboose through the darkest subway station without fear of rape, assault, abuse, or accost. Also in a perfect world I could don a Confederate Army uniform and carry the Rebel Flag through South Central L.A. while singing Massa’s in de Cold, Cold Ground. But our world isn’t perfect and neither act represents a prudent choice.
Ines Sainz wasn’t assaulted in any substantive way. No one groped her or offered her an evening to remember. Her person wasn’t insulted; her professionalism was. On this point Ines cannot claim innocence. While a provocatively dressed woman doesn’t excuse a man’s loutish behavior, such behavior is no surprise. And it’s equally true that professionalism begins with the person. Has Ines cultivated a professional image?
Sainz looked rather comfortable in her body-hugging denim Capri’s and low-cut blouse while cavorting with two Indianapolis Colts linemen at last year’s Super Bowl. When she visited the Jets her jeans were again seductively snug. This is her rule, not her exception. Sainz routinely packages her assets in jeans tighter that those worn by the lead singers of 1980s hair metal bands. Her bikini photos aren’t unspectacular either.
Not being someone who’s offended by a pretty woman in sexy clothes, let me be the one to go out on the limb. Yes, Ines Sainz looks great in her Frederick’s of Hollywood wardrobe. Her bikinis are fit for the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue and her jeans superb for trolling the club scene. But, if she wants professional treatment she should dress professionally while on the job.
When someone presents a serious, professional image their chances of being treated seriously and professionally escalate. Yes, woman can dress attractively and still present a professional appearance. Fox News’ Megan Kelly and Gretchen Carlson prove it everyday. But when a woman dresses provocatively on the job it should surprise no one when she’s ogled.
Researching Ines Sainz’s wardrobe choices and pontificating on who is at fault and why is easy. Solutions that prevent similar episodes are more difficult. Fortunately, I have an answer. Since locker rooms and clubhouses are filled with athletes in various stages of undress no reporter, male or female, belongs there.
Locker rooms and clubhouses are the athlete’s refuge, their haven to concentrate on the game ahead, reflect on one completed, or simply unwind. Locker room reporters are a distraction whether they come in the form of sexy women in skin-tight jeans or bald men in sport coats. Reporters have ample opportunity to interview athletes outside the locker room.
Ines shouldn’t have received a stripper’s reception at the Jets’ facility. However, her choice of attire was imprudent. She didn’t present the image of someone who wants to be taken seriously. In fact, the Redskins’ Clinton Portis was quite correct. Ines looked more like a teenager seeking a date for the prom that a reporter conducting an interview.
I’m thankful to be alive. For a moment I thought I had breathed my last. Snow has fallen, and if it weren’t for the local news I’m sure I’d have assumed room temperature by now. From their expert, on-the-spot reporters I have learned that snowstorms produce icy conditions, slick roads and cold temperatures.
Maybe I shouldn’t joke about death. I could meet my end at a moment’s notice. None of us are promised our next breath. So, for that next breath I am truly grateful. However, is there really a need for talking head reporters to tell us how to deal with every natural weather condition? To be brutally honest I don’t need it. In fact, I consider news coverage of most storms as an insult to my intelligence. Let me give some examples.
One reporter was “live on the street” in Salisbury, NC. He told me that I shouldn’t venture out in the two to four inches of snow. First, two to four inches isn’t exactly the storm of the century. Second, if roads were so impassable, how did the reporter get to Salisbury? Did he go by dogsled? Maybe a helicopter dropped him in on a cable, kind of like when Lucy Ricardo was lowered onto the cruise ship.
After telling me the gravity of my situation, the newsroom staff joked with the reporter about the coffee shop patrons across the street, who came out to wave at the news cameras. How did those people get to the coffee shop? I’ve heard that some people live at Starbucks. But I always considered that a metaphorical statement. My guess is that these people drove their cars, which rendered as ludicrous the entire report about impassable roads.
Another reporter positioned himself near the intersection of NC Highway 273 and I-85 in Belmont, NC. This guy came complete with props. He and his snow shovel proved that ice could actually be present in snow. Well how about that? Join him for his next jaw-dropping report, when he verifies the presence of water vapor in clouds. Please! The reporter shoveled the snow aside so viewers could see the ice patch he’d discovered. He scraped and scraped. He kept talking, but who could hear him? His shoveling obscured his every word. Good thing he had nothing worthwhile to report.
Just when I thought it couldn’t get worse out came the driving instructions. The shoveling reporter admonished a passing motorist for driving too fast for conditions, and then informed me that the offending driver was the type who’d be in the ditch thirty minutes later.
That’s a bit presumptuous. Who is this reporter is to determine the intentions or abilities of the car’s driver? The car looked to be traveling no more than 20 MPH. It wasn’t slipping, sliding or spinning in the least. And why say that the car would be in the ditch in thirty minutes? The reporter barely knew what was happening in the present, much less the future. That car could have slid into the grass at any moment. Or, its driver could’ve completed the journey without incident, just like untold numbers of drivers do every time snow falls.
That reporter ventured into the cold and snow, violating the very safety instructions he conveyed to me, just so I’d know that snow can be icy and roads can be slick. Stay at home next time, pal. Sit in front of the fire. Drink some hot chocolate. You served no useful purpose whatsoever.
If there’s anything worse than a Nostradamus wannabe reporter who states the obvious it’s a reporter who has no idea what’s going on. The final reporter I saw, before turning the channel in disgust, combined those two characteristics into one mindless, wholly unwatchable segment.
No remote report is complete without the perky blonde, and “Winter Blizzard Icy Blast 2010” (or whatever mindless moniker the media hung on this storm) is no exception. Let’s call the perky blonde “Bunny.” It just seems to fit.
Bunny was strategically perched on a highway overpass--bridges will freeze before the main roads, in case you didn’t know--and kicked off her report by telling me that it’s cold outside. Uh, Bunny, there’s snow and ice everywhere. I think I can figure out I don’t need my swim trunks today. Thanks anyway. Maybe you can return in August and tell me all about the summer’s heat.
If Bunny’s report were a prize fight it would’ve been stopped right there. Unfortunately, there was no referee and Bunny wouldn’t throw in the towel. At least she’s persistent. Bunny next told me that sleet was falling and could be plainly seen hitting her face. “It feels like hail,” Bunny exclaimed.
Bunny my dear, sleet can be difficult to see when you’re looking through the living room window. It’s nearly impossible to see on television. You’d have a better chance identifying stegosaurus DNA with a magnifying glass. However, I did learn one thing; Bunny has never been outside during a hailstorm.
Believe it or not, that wasn’t the worst of Bunny’s report. Remember that part about not knowing what you’re looking at? Well, Bunny’s obliviousness to her surroundings became evident just before she signed off. She told me that the roads were slick (thanks for the tip . . . again!) but that there were many cars traveling the interstate.
Bunny, switch to radio. On radio you can paint any picture you want and the listener will never know the difference. Television cameras have this tendency to show the situation as it exists. One car passed while Bunny talked about the high volume of traffic.
I’ll give the weather forecasters their kudos; they got this one right. The snow fell just as they predicted. But snow has fallen before, in much greater volumes, and will fall again no matter what Al Gore says. This isn’t the storm to end all storms. It’s not the end of the world. I’m confident in my knowledge that snow is cold and ice is slick; that roads can be slippery and that frigid air accompanies winter storms. I really don’t need reporters to share that information. I can walk out the front door and see it for myself. Unless I slip and bump my head, chances are good that I won’t die. Neither will you.
