Tongues are wagging over a confrontation between CNN’s Piers Morgan and MSNBC’s Toure (a journalist who appears to go by just one name like Cher or the Artist Formerly Known As Prince). At issue was whether Morgan should have been tougher on George Zimmerman’s brother in an interview or conversely whether journalists like Toure have discarded their neutrality and objective distance in declaring Zimmerman a murderer. Putting aside the childish rhetoric, it is a serious question of whether journalists are crossing the line into advocacy in declaring the guilt of someone like Zimmerman. The controversy has also raised long-standing uncertainty of the role of anchors and journalists in actively supporting a claim, cause or movement.
The exchange below is clearly driven to some extent by bad blood between the two men who crossed virtual swords over Twitter. After the Zimmerman interview, Toure objected that “Piers did not challenge Robert Zimmerman the way a professional journalist should” and later accused him of “allowing Rob Zimmerman to spout unchallenged lies further poisons a tense moment in American history. Be professional.” Morgan responded by tweeting “Oh Toure, you’re such a tedious little twerp . . . ps @Toure – 71k tweets for just 57k followers? Ouch. Ever get the feeling you’re doing a LOT of jabbering but nobody’s listening?”
Not exactly the stuff of Edward R. Murrow. Then however it got more direct and even more personal on the show. Morgan pointed out that Toure had pronounced the guilt of a man without all of the evidence and disregarding the claims of the accused. Toure insisted that Morgan was ignoring the obvious evidence of guilt.
MORGAN: Wait a minute. At no stage did I give any sense that I agreed with what he was saying. I challenged him repeatedly about many of the things that he was saying.
TOURE: What you understand as challenging, perhaps, maybe that goes in England. That’s not what we do in terms of challenging in America.
While not defending Morgan’s interview with Zimmerman, he did challenge Zimmerman’s account:
MORGAN: How do you explain as a family the video that came out last night of your brother within not much time after this incident walking around, unaided, perfectly OK, with no apparent markings to his face? If you get a broken nose or the kind of head injuries sustainable from having your head smashed on the concrete floor, you’re going to have blood everywhere. You’re going to have injuries. There is nothing.
I mean, we’re looking at images now. There’s no visible sign of any attack. How do you explain that?
I did understand Toure’s frustration with Zimmerman’s brother. However, I was a bit surprised to see a journalist say that a second unreleased 911 call would clearly prove Zimmerman guilty.
MORGAN: Do you believe that George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin?
TOURE: Yes.
MORGAN: So you’ve already tried him? You’ve convicted him?
TOURE: You asked me what I think.
MORGAN: You called me — you called me — you called me an irresponsible journalist. Really? That is professional? Professional journalism means that you have just —
(CROSSTALK)
TOURE: — George Zimmerman is clearly showing repeatedly racist bias against a person who he does not know and has never seen before, and is pouring all these sort of stereotypes into this person.
That’s even before we get to coon. They always get away, which is ridiculous because the jails are filled with millions of black men. But he thinks they always get away. He’s up to no good. He’s got his hands in his pants. He’s on drugs.
It’s a 17-year-old boy walking down the street talking to his girl on the phone. None of those things are true. But he’s already said all those things.
And then we have the other 911 call, which I imagine will be extraordinarily damaging if we ever get to a court of law, where we hear someone screaming, which clearly sounds like a young boy and not a 200 something pound 28-year-old man with a gun.
A person, however, is screaming. There’s a gunshot. And there’s no more screaming. That sounds to me pretty damning. It reminds him of the face Emmett Till, bashed in the coffin, where we see here’s evidence of a black body being destroyed wrongfully, innocently. And the justice system, of course, not coming to his aid.
MORGAN: I’ve raised many questions about the justice system, the legal process, as anyone who has watched the show in the last week knows. What I haven’t done is convict George Zimmerman because I haven’t seen all the facts yet. You berate me for a lack of professional journalism.
But you have just said that you believe he murdered him. You have a very biased, one sided opinion of this, based on your assessment of the limited amount of facts that we have at our disposal. That’s your prerogative. I don’t challenge you. I simply say that as a fact. You also think it’s OK to do stupid dumb jokes, mocking — what did you call it, Zimmermaning (ph) me? You’re killing me.
So we are different people. I like to think that I’m a professional journalist, Toure. I think you are something else. But I appreciate you joining me tonight.
There has always been an interesting question of when a journalist should clearly state what has been established even if denied by a party. For example, I have long criticized the use of the term “enhanced interrogation” by the media — a term made up by the Bush Administration to avoid calling waterboarding “torture” as uniformly defined by U.S. and foreign courts. That is an example of where news reporting can mislead the reader into believing that there is a credible debate or uncertainty over whether waterboarding is torture. Yet, here many journalists feel the evidence is clear and conclusive — should they speak of the evidence in such terms?
Of course, in this case, you have an individual who insists that he was attacked and there is only sketchy evidence of what occurred at the scene. I have previously stated that I believe Zimmerman could have been arrested at the scene based on that evidence. Yet,I have been criticized for simply noting that the case had “murky” element and was “not as conclusive” as suggested in some coverage. I have also been criticized for not declaring Zimmerman clearly guilty while exploring the likely issues facing any possible prosecution.
As a legal commentator and a civil libertarian, I am uncomfortable with political campaigns and petitions demanding prosecutions. While I have expressed my skepticism over Zimmerman’s account, there remains standards to satisfy for any prosecution — including proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There are many details that have yet to come out, including forensic evidence. There are also questions such as whether Zimmerman will claim that Martin tried to grab the gun. Self-defense cases are context bound and detail driven. My training leads me to be neutral in such analysis. While expressing my skepticism, I think it is important to explore both versions of the shooting in a detached manner to assist others in reaching conclusions about the state of the evidence.
The question is whether some television personalities and journalists have crossed the line such as Al Sharpton’s suggestion of civil unrest unless there is an indictment. This includes journalists like Allison Samuels recounting what Martin was thinking at the time of his killing:
SAMUELS: Is this slavery day, where we have to show our papers and say, “Hey, look, I’m allowed to be here. I’m free?” That’s ridiculous. You don’t have to explain who you are or why you’re here to someone who does not have a badge, who is not in a uniform.
I am sure this young man’s attitude was, “What are you following me for, what are you doing?” And I don’t know why they would try to flip the script on that, and make that seem that that’s inappropriate, when he had every right to be there, and didn’t have to explain that to anyone.
. . .SAMUELS: Trayvon Martin had no idea what was happening. He had no idea why this guy was behind him. And the young girl, the girlfriend, I think is going to be very important when she is able to testify, to say he was saying, “This guy’s following me.” She’s telling him to run. Trayvon was very scared for his life, and I think there’s no way that they can sort of change the way that that went down, no matter what they release. . . .
SAMUELS: No, and I was in Sanford, Florida for a couple of days. I went around the community, I talked to a number of people. No one that I spoke to there could sort of defend what George Zimmerman had done, no one was in agreement with what he had done, and no one had seen what he had done. The women that you’ve seen — who admitted, who came forth — they went to the police, they went to the police station, and they talked to the media, they talked about what they saw. I even talked to a little kid who had seen sort of the end of it.
But I talked to no one who had actually witnessed the other part of this story that Zimmerman is putting forth. So, it’s all very suspect. It is also very convenient for it to come out now, when he — Zimmerman — and the police department is taking such a beating.
Samuels made some very good points in the interview and she is a serious journalist by any measure, but the question is where journalists should draw the line in presuming feelings or thoughts. This has always been a difficult question for me in drawing this line. However, I am concerned that the super-heated environment in this case may be interfering with an objective accounting of the facts and possible prosecution. That can itself lead to a violent response if the public is not told about the difficult legal issues that would be raised in any trial.
Notably, the continued super-heated language and marches (and irresponsible tweeting and use of social media) will create a serious question of a fair trial if an indictment is ever brought in the case. A change of venue motion would likely be filed, but where would such a trial occur. With rallies being held in major cities, the defense might try to push the trial to smaller cities or towns. However, there may be a racial differential in the jury pool in such jurisdictions. That would create an ironic twist that the rallies and public statements in various cities could work to the advantage of the defense in a venue change in a more rural area or less urban area.
There may be a different standard for legal commentators and journalists as opposed to others. However, for years, legal commentators have been urged to be outspoken in their accounts — taking predictable sides in coverage that often produces more heat than light. Another (different) question is whether it is appropriate for anchors on Fox or MSNBC to lead political rallies and campaigns. Keith Olbermann was fired at MSNBC for writing a couple of small checks to candidates for political office. I understand that policy and the importance to keep journalists neutral, but there appears no bar on actually leading a political rally and openly supporting one party — so long as you do not give actual money. Again, I am not sure of what the objective line is that divided a small financial contribution to a candidate and leading voting drives for a particular party. Fox recently cancelled an auction item by Dick Morris to assist a local GOP campaign. In defense of people like Sharpton, I am not sure such a line has been articulated. Moreover, Sharpton is billed as a civil rights leader and activist as opposed to a journalist. Morris is defined as a political operative. Does that matter?
What do you think?
Here is the transcript of the Toure/Morgan interview.
MCM,
“Thompson would get blasted then show up and do an interview. How can you applaud gonzo journalism in one breath, with its personal view all in the muddy mix, then ask for some ‘objective’ standard.”
Might I suggest for the very reason gonzo journalism as practiced by Thompson worked in spite of its obvious lack of objectivity – no matter how loaded he was or personalized in his presentation, Thompson always staked his tent with truthful observations even when he was bending the truth for the benefit of artful presentation.
My view is that Florida’s “stand your ground” law relies upon a wildly flawed assumption, that a person carrying a gun and encountering a conflict in a public setting can be relied upon to act reasonably. I think that in practice the statute will more frequently be regarded as a “make my day” law. In this instance, I stated following the initial report that Mr. Zimmerman likely regards his neighborhood as a Sundown Town and acted accordingly. The most likely outcome is a manslaughter plea down the road.
As for Toure, a journalist appearing before a national audience does not have the luxury of voicing his personal opinion on the guilt or innocence of a criminal suspect. To do so creates a risk of harm to the suspect’s right to a fair trial. I view the demonstrations in the same light. Once they have served the function of compelling a thorough and unbiased investigation, their purpose is concluded and the process should then be permitted to run its proper course without interference.
“Rather, a journalist to be taken seriously handles such trite turns of phrase artfully; like Hunter S. Thompson.”
this comment really is loaded with so much that throws your attack on Toure as a “clown” in question. Thompson would get blasted then show up and do an interview. How can you applaud gonzo journalism in one breath, with its personal view all in the muddy mix, then ask for some “objective” standard.
I’d love to see you square that circle.
Oh, and the utter contrast of your expectations of a “professional journalist” and then honoring Hunter S Thompson who turned those damn conventions on their ear…is stark. You might want to consider your words again before writing. Hunter S Thompson was not a “professional journalist” by your standards.
“I was referring to Toure’s demeanor in a particular interview. Why do you feel the need to change the subject?”
I didn’t. I referred to the interview, you slammed his journalism…these are not the same thing. If you want to discuss his journalism, it won’t be in this interview. So, you changed the subject.
The interview, he came to discuss what was wrong with Piers Morgan’s interview. He explained his view to the boor and the boor responded, “rubbish” at best. Then you go on about his ‘journalism’ based on the interview?
Projection comment:
:The issue was whether he acted like a professional journalist during the interview. Yet you whine about the fact that I failed to discuss the irrelevant.”
That whining is your inner voice projection, I’d caution you against projecting voices on others. I don’t whine unless I’m out of chocolate at 3am.
“acted like a professional journalist” is such a subjective load of crap. What you’re saying is he didn’t comport with your character guidelines and thus isn’t a professional journalist. You’re ability to articulate what a professional journalist is, has yet to be demonstrated.
Additionally, you have omitted the attack back from the boor, Morgan. So, if Morgan makes a comment like, “teach you about journalism” is he supposed to smile like a good boy and say, “oh, gee, thank you for your concern, but that won’t be necessary”
You’re expectations are not universal nor are they required to be a Professional Journalist. A Professional is one who makes a Profession out of a skill or service. The rest of your use in this term is something utterly different and has nothing to do with ‘journalism’. So, get to your point about ‘professional’ behavior and not about ‘journalism’.
“Actually, I’m looking at him as a lawyer. ”
very clear that you were not looking at as a journalist.
Guess what…very different fields yet no less ethical. Lawyers cherry pick facts to make a case. So don’t bullshit me on that.
“Issue: Did Toure act like a clown?”
Factually false at face value, no big bow tie, funny make up, balloons. Sorry, you’re syllogism isn’t working very well so far…
“Rule: To act like a clown means to act in a coarse, rude and vulgar manner much like a buffoon.”
Describes Piers Morgan’s responses perfectly. Utterly stunning that you own the view on this one. Glad there’s only one view, not biased now are you?
“Serious journalists don’t get caught up hitching their wagons to, how shall we say, “fatuous” nonsensical notions; such as what is ‘uniquely American’ and what ‘hurts America’ like Toure did during that interview. ”
loaded statement….”serious journalists”…whoooo nice big term…means nothing. Toure is very SERIOUS that there is a part of American suffering that Piers Morgan isn’t reflecting his understanding. I doubt it is vaudeville for him. I can see you’re mind treats him as clown, but that reflects more on your interpretation than the actuality. You’re allowed your interpretation of course. I’m sure Toure won’t mind or be harmed. Its ok.
” Rather, a journalist to be taken seriously handles such trite turns of phrase artfully; like Hunter S. Thompson.”
Artful is in the eye of the beholder, oh wise one. I’m sure you are the great arbitrator of what is artful with your objective view.
“you hear commentary at the end of the story, sometimes merely a sentence, sometimes a little more (if not within the story itself) but one that indicates a left or right, usually right, and interpretation, not journalistic objectivity.”
but we’re muddying the waters here….lawyers come on television all the time and give answers based on more than just the law. They’re giving a glimpse into the process and thinking. For someone to treat their personal comments about right and wrong as legal opinions would be foolish and yet they are no less a lawyer. The finest of the law profs like Prof Turley are patient in their explanations to avoid getting ahead of the facts but if you don’t know the views and opinions of Jonathan Turley by now, then he’s just not being clear enough. Does that make him a biased lawyer?
A journalist talking with a panel is not the same thing as the fact finding they put into their written work or their radio or television segments. Yes, they can blow their credibility in the ‘off time’ but frankly that’s just the result of a 24/7 news cycle. Many great writers who are often extremely factual in print are utter assholes on FoxNews, CNN or MSNBC later. Why? Because it is opinion time at that point.
The argument that Toure is less a journalist because he tells you his opinion about racism, this case, a pattern he sees…is simply avoiding dealing with his articles. A journalist has personal opinions. Only the well tooled idiots in the White House Press gaggle and such have this idea of ‘don’t render an opinion’. What a pathetic waste of human experience to rob a journalist of their personal viewpoint just so they can convey facts to you, a narrative to you, and point of view to you.
Nothing wrong with arguing against dishonest journalism. Judith Miller comes to mind…..
“If I’d written all the truth I knew for the past ten years, about 600 people – including me – would be rotting in prison cells from Rio to Seattle today. Absolute truth is a very rare and dangerous commodity in the context of professional journalism.” – Hunter S. Thompson
“Thompson always staked his tent with truthful observations” exactly.
but the argument about what is “professional” is not the same as what is ‘truthful’. A totally unprofessional person might be a very truthful witness with character flaws. It is a strange standard.
as you said: “Absolute truth is a very rare and dangerous commodity in the context of professional journalism.” by Gonzo himself.
Toure spoke his truth to Piers Morgan. He spoke about the interview held the night before. He did so out of the complete conviction that the truth was buried and obscured. That there is a long colloquial history that isn’t properly seen from the surface. Morgan reflected that right back with his “i’ve been here 6 years” and “i’ve covered this for a week” nonsense. That showed immediately that he didn’t get it. As an American, had Toure said that to me, I’d say, “well, lets explore that…are you referring to the long line of lynchings, the nightly stereotyping of black males, the history of incarceration without trial, shooting young black men and then no-bill the officers?” or something closer to the topic he was raising to indicate I was hearing his complaint. Then he could elaborate, “yes or no” on whether I was close.
Morgan took the “how dare you” approach mixed with the red herring about length of time and even subject matter. He clearly doesn’t understand what Toure was talking about regarding this event as painful in a collective manner (clearly demonstrable) and yet…I did and so did many others. Strange.
I think the thing Toure could have said differently there was, “you don’t understand the experience of Black America. Then it was less about the Yankee Doodle Dandy America as some commented above in the general “america” tense and more about the pain that Toure was talking about. But even then, that would leave out the pain of people who suffer along with Black America for the same offenses. It isn’t something that only affects Black America so frankly, he’s right. It affects all of us. England has its own colloquial pains. I’ve run into a few stiff upper lip moments that I didn’t understand until someone clued me in. It isn’t that big of a deal. Only a very vain man like Piers Morgan would bristle at being told he didn’t get it.
And to Mike Appleton:
I too am cautious about a fair trial being twarted, but I have more faith in our system than to believe : “As for Toure, a journalist appearing before a national audience does not have the luxury of voicing his personal opinion on the guilt or innocence of a criminal suspect. To do so creates a risk of harm to the suspect’s right to a fair trial. ”
he has exactly that luxury and it does not harm the right to a fair trial. As I said to Bob the Professional above, the police did more to affect the fair trial, the prosecutors did more to affect a fair trial, ABC, and the networks have done more to affect a fair trial than…Toure. One man rendering an opinion does not destroy your fair trial. Further, again, there is no article by Toure that says, “George Zimmerman is guilty of murder, lock him up now.” His point has been the same, this investigation let a man go that should have been given more examination, that the victim in the crime had no advocate and that this has been seen before. None of that affects a fair trial. Calling for justice…does not prevent a fair trial. When asked on the spot if a journalist believes the man is guilty..(especially since we already know he shot the boy)…the answer is yes. That doesn’t affect the trial.
If he were an official, especially in jurisdictional range, then we could talk about how he affects a trial. If he lies in the fact presentation to portray an innocent man as guilty, then he has certainly harmed his own reputation for getting it right. And that can be considered in the future in determining the veracity of his ‘facts’. But to argue all of this is to show how little some here even know of what Toure actually writes, what he’s received awards for in the past (a sports article on Dale Earnhart for instance) It ignores a whole body of work for an honest comment about his opinion.
Yes, I too believe George Zimmerman acted in a vigilante mode and the brother fogged. Yes, I can also provide support for that view based on what is in evidence. Is it biased? Of course it is biased against hearing people say things that are clearly contrasted by both irrefutable evidence and my basic life experience. (no different than a juror)
His lawyer is doing more to harm him than Toure. The only black man who harmed him this last week was Joe Oliver. His friend Frank, his father Robert, his brother Robert…they are not helping his case…but lets pound on Toure for being mouthy to the ‘professional journalist’ because that will bring a fair trial.
MCM: “Toure is a journalist. He was asked by a person his thoughts about guilt in an interview. He said he thought the guy was guilty. You didn’t discuss a piece of his journalism stating “george zimmerman is guilty” or alluding to it either.”
Again, like the intended focus of this thread, I was referring to Toure’s demeanor in a particular interview. Why do you feel the need to change the subject?
MCM: “His journalism is recognized as award winning so you’ll have to do the work on who Toure is to keep up your attack on his record.”
For the record, I couldn’t care less about his take on hip hop culture and the like.
MCM: “If you’re going to pin it on the comment in the interview, then you aren’t really discussing his journalism anyway.”
There you go again; redefining the issue. The issue was whether he acted like a professional journalist during the interview. Yet you whine about the fact that I failed to discuss the irrelevant.
MCM: “As for your “its all relative dude” jab, I’m not saying its all relative exactly. I am saying Objective Journalism is a myth.”
Yes, I’m aware of that you epistemic whiz. But the fact remains that we do distinguish between journalists based on perceived objectivity. That is to say, we all know the difference between a Bill Moyers and a Sean Hannity. Exclaiming to the world that “objective journalism is a myth,” like a two year old that just learned the phrase “excuse me,” doesn’t negate the existence of said rubric. And just to be clear, by the word “rubric” we mean “an assessment tool for communicating expectations of quality.”
Bob: “To suggest he was a journalist while doing so only makes him look like a clown.”
MCM: “If you’re going to randomly discuss logical fallacies in argument in any way, then don’t engage in them. “look like a clown” doesn’t explain in a journalistic way what was wrong with his journalistic work. You are being a critic of his personal discussion with another man as if this reflects on his work as a journalist.”
Actually, I’m looking at him as a lawyer. IRAC. Issue Rule Analysis Conclusion.
Issue: Did Toure act like a clown?
Rule: To act like a clown means to act in a coarse, rude and vulgar manner much like a buffoon.
Analysis: See my comments above.
Conclusion: Toure is guilty of epic buffoonery.
MCM: “So…what does a ‘journalist look like’?”
Serious journalists don’t get caught up hitching their wagons to, how shall we say, “fatuous” nonsensical notions; such as what is ‘uniquely American’ and what ‘hurts America’ like Toure did during that interview. Rather, a journalist to be taken seriously handles such trite turns of phrase artfully; like Hunter S. Thompson.
I leave you with this:
Raoul Duke: “There was only one road back to L.A., U.S. interstate 15. Just a flat-out high speed burn through Baker, and Barstow, and Berdoo. Then on to the Hollywood freeway straight into frantic oblivion. Safety… obscurity… just another freak in the freak kingdom. We’d gone in search of the American dream, it had been a lame fuck around. A waste of time. There was no point in looking back. Fuck no, not today, thank you kindly. My heart was filled with joy. I felt like a monster reincarnation of Horatio Algier, a man on the move, and just sick enough to be totally confident.”
“Bill Moyers and a Sean Hannity”
These men don’t even belong in the same sentence.
You can do a retake if you need.
I sure do miss Hunter.
Michael CheyneywatchMcCollum – I would hope if you are assigned a story on prison abuse that you would keep an open mind, you need to have soome idea about the story you will do, there is prison abuse, there is not prison abuse, there is some prison abuse, picking a topic does not necessarily mean picking a side.
Everytime I saw Toure he was talking about hos this was racism and racist. At no point have I heard him show any hint of objectivity.
Sadly when you watch almost any of them, Bill Plant and Bob Schieffer as 2 examples that madden me, you hear commentary at the end of the story, sometimes merely a sentence, sometimes a little more (if not within the story itself) but one that indicates a left or right, usually right, and interpretation, not journalistic objectivity.
In discussing great journalists let us not forget Hunter Thompson, who book fear and loathing on the campaign trail sight me all I needed to know about Presidential campaigns.
“not forget Hunter Thompson,”
Actually Gonzo was looming around in my head during that list above. lol Yes, without Thompson, we’d not have many of our adventurous modern investigative journalists.
“I would hope if you are assigned a story on prison abuse that you would keep an open mind, you need to have soome idea about the story you will do, there is prison abuse, there is not prison abuse, there is some prison abuse, picking a topic does not necessarily mean picking a side.”
Well without an open mind you can’t even build the case you thought you were building. You wind up with one interview that confirms your hypothesis. That’s not very useful. Your better off getting officials to speak, to explain their policies. But my point is…you were drawn to cover the topic out of a bias of ‘fairness’. For someone to overcharacterize that as ‘bias’ in the 10th degree is just hyperbole.
Picking a story as worthy is bias.
Picking a source as credible, involves bias.
Journalists are humans not computers. A computer can process data without rendering its opinion. Human beings are not computers and Objective Journalism is a goal that cannot be reached. For every “objective” story someone might want to lob, I’ll show the biases in the story.
The purpose of seeking objectivity in writing a story is to allow the reader to have their experience for themselves.
Give you a more direct example: I’m convinced Richard B Cheney is a war criminal. I have enough evidence to prove many of his crimes but my friends who are loyal ‘truthers’ get upset when I don’t jump on their ship. “But you must believe he was behind it!” they plea. I don’t worry about believing anything. The evidence hasn’t stacked up. At best I have motive, opportunity, gain, and many more things but…sorry, as you suggested…remaining open…I have to see the evidence.
I’ve reported back to my editors (radio) before that the story we were looking into was a dead end because the elements that were delivered to us didn’t match the facts I could verify. Though I was left with a hint of wrong doing by local officials (environmental) I couldn’t really pin one down outside the general bureaucracy errors and incompetence. The allegations that came in didn’t match the evidence and the story never hit the airwaves.
So yes, your credibility is all you have. Get the facts and sources wrong enough and you’re out.
Mike – the American dream is not a myth! You can work 20 years for one company & then have your job outsourced overseas & your pension stolen to buy off the BoD . . . oh, wait. is that not the American dream now? Because thats what I thought it was. I’m livin’ that dream myself
oops to remember
http://www.ifstone.org/ For those that are not old enough too remember the ” IF Stone Weekly.”
Same here Mike Spindell, big fan of Joe Campbell, his foundation, and many of the great story tellers. They ended my notion that ‘myth’ meant ‘false’.
And I.F. Stone, George Seldes, Ida Tarbell, Molly Ivens, Jim Hightower, Jeremy Skahill, and many others who dared challenge convention.
We really owe a lot to the nonconformists when we talk about ethics in journalism. They were often the most ethical people in the world while the major paper would be bought and paid for by the industry captains.
Smaller papers like Ida B. Wells’s The Free Speech focused on specific areas like Jim Crow laws.
In my research into Standard Oil, its a treat to read Ida Tarbell’s work. She knew from first hand experience what Standard Oil was doing and sought to expose their tactics. To say this isn’t quality journalism is to totally miss the meaning of the word.
Swarthmore mom, I.F. Stone is one of my favs. As we discuss health care, we should enjoy is work, The Court Disposes. Had this been done one of today’s ‘objective journalists’…the new deal….would perhaps been a thing of not.
Its tragic yet can be fun to scoop the big papers or catch the nugget they didn’t. Recent celeb tie in on this one:
During the 2008 primary season we all likely remember the “somali garb” tabloid picture. It was used in the media to attack Hillary Clinton with the claim that it originated with one of her staffers. Now, some did say “was forwarded by a staffer” but the implication was always clear, This Was From The Clinton camp.
The staffer was canned, the media chewed and chewed, and all along…they were wrong. The picture actually originated a few days previous at the Free Republic. Because the Freepers have a habit of attacking and fighting with many progressive groups I’ve interacted with, I sort of know their ilk. To each their own. In fact, they were upset that the poster at FR didn’t get credit and Clinton (arch-rival of big government) did. It went from there to Matt Drudge and 2 days later the staffer passed the mail. Likely because someone told them about it.
But the narrative never corrected itself and I know for a fact that Countdown was told that it didn’t originate with Clinton. The response to the caller informing them was “are you a clinton supporter?”, “well, I haven’t voted yet but I might.”, “Have a nice day!” hang up.
In a way this was a knee Jerk reaction, but it perhaps was an attempt to keep information that was biased from coming in. The caller wasn’t convinced Obama was the best choice, but wasn’t calling to defend Clinton at all. The call was to point out it didn’t even originate in the Democratic Party in the first place (key to know, ya’d think).
Then, 2 months later, as referred to above, Clinton is blasted for a ‘false’ hospital story that was actually true. ABCNews even had the video of the officer who told her the story. But because another hospital missed the cue and thought it meant them, they denied it and the media pounced. Especially worthy to note it was all the so called “professional journalists” who did this. The Clinton camp dropped a legitimate point on the trail. A small town sheriff in Meigs County was being ridiculed while correct, and all to get the scoop. It took 1 lone journalist who had taped the first telling of Clinton’s story to get the facts right and force the overtuning of the story. Yet only WaPo and ABCNews issued the correction, quietly on page 41842B behind the file cabinet.
Due to these oversights, I think it rather silly to hear Piers Morgan used as an example of ethics while Toure who calls what he sees, researches with hundreds of interviews…is not a journalist. Then lets see that juxtaposed against the narrative about white power, acceptance, black inferiority and victims. Who is official is all about who approves power. Racism is about power, sexism is about power. These areas need honest answers too and it takes bold people to tell those truths, even in the form of metaphor and myth.
And for the few who wish to mock the “moment in history” comment, sorry, he’s right. This is a momentous point. Is it equivalent to WWII? no…but it certainly will be remembered and noted for sometime. It is still playing out. Tell me the Rodney King beating wasn’t a moment in history and Reginald Denny will tell you “you’re wrong”
Thanks Gene, Mike Spindell, and Swarthmore mom. Swathmore, yes, I’m up for a bit of a SCOTUS change myself. Looking back at past justices, who would be a mold for a replacement considering the current players?
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that jailers may subject people arrested for minor offenses to invasive strip searches, siding with security needs over privacy rights.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion for the court.
By Evan Vucci, AP
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion for the court.
Enlarge
By Evan Vucci, AP
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion for the court.
By a 5-4 vote, the court ruled against a New Jersey man who complained that strip searches in two county jails violated his civil rights.
Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion for the court’s conservative justices that when people are going to be put into the general jail population, “courts must defer to the judgment of correctional officials unless the record contains substantial evidence showing their policies are an unnecessary or unjustified response to problems of jail security.”
In a dissenting opinion joined by the court’s liberals, Justice Stephen Breyer said strip searches improperly “subject those arrested for minor offenses to serious invasions of their personal privacy.” Breyer said jailers ought to have a reasonable suspicion someone may be hiding something before conducting a strip search.
Albert Florence was forced to undress and submit to strip searches following his arrest on a warrant for an unpaid fine, though the fine actually had been paid. Even if the warrant had been valid, failure to pay a fine is not a crime in New Jersey.
But Kennedy focused on the fact that Florence was held with other inmates in the general population. In concurring opinions, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito said the decision left open the possibility of an exception to the rule and might not apply to someone held apart from other inmates.
The first strip search of Florence took place in the Burlington County Jail in southern New Jersey. Six days later, Florence had not received a hearing and remained in custody. Transferred to another county jail in Newark, he was strip-searched again.
The next day, a judge dismissed all charges. Florence’s lawsuit soon followed.
He may still pursue other claims, including that he never should have been arrested.
Florence’s problems arose in March 2005, as he was heading to dinner at his mother-in-law’s house with his pregnant wife and 4-year-old child. His wife, April, was driving when a state trooper stopped the family SUV on a New Jersey highway.
Florence identified himself as the vehicle’s owner and the trooper, checking records, found an outstanding warrant for an unpaid fine. Florence, who is African-American, had been stopped several times before, and he carried a letter to the effect that the fine, for fleeing a traffic stop several years earlier, had been paid.
His protest was in vain, however, and the trooper handcuffed him and hauled him off to jail. At the time, the State Police were operating under a court order, spawned by allegations of past racial discrimination, that provided federal monitors to assess state police stops of minority drivers. But the propriety of the stop is not at issue, and Florence is not alleging racial discrimination.
Kennedy gave three reasons to justify routine searches — detecting lice and contagious infections, looking for tattoos and other evidence of gang membership and preventing smuggling of drugs and weapons.
Kennedy also said people arrested for minor offenses can turn out to be “the most devious and dangerous criminals.” Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh initially was stopped by a state trooper who noticed McVeigh was driving without a license plate, Kennedy said.
In his dissent, Breyer said inmates in the two New Jersey jails already have to submit to pat-down searches, pass through metal detectors, shower with delousing agents and have their clothing searched.
Many jails, several states and associations of corrections officials say strip searches should only be done when there is reasonable suspicion, which could include arrest on drug charges or for violent crimes, Breyer said.
In 1979, the Supreme Court upheld a blanket policy of conducting body cavity searches of prisoners who had had contact with visitors on the basis that the interaction with outsiders created the possibility that some prisoners got hold of something they shouldn’t have.
For the next 30 or so years, appeals courts applying the high court ruling held uniformly that strip searches without suspicion violated the Constitution.
But since 2008 — and in the first appellate rulings on the issue since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks — appeals courts in Atlanta, Philadelphia and San Francisco decided that authorities’ need to maintain security justified a wide-ranging search policy, no matter the reason for someone’s detention.
The high court upheld the ruling from the Philadelphia court, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Michael, I posted it earlier on this thread. It was another 5-4 decision. We need to flip one republican appointee.
Off topic but breaking news: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-upholds-jail-strip-searches–even-for-minor-offenses/2012/04/02/gIQAsZB4qS_story.html?tid=pm_pop
SCOTUS upholds jail strip searches even for minor offenses.
One more thing on Piers Morgan…citing ethics…
Let us not forget his antics with Rupert Murdoch or that he was fired from the Mirror for not following the sourcing basics in journalism. This was the key part of Toure’s criticism. Piers Morgan is more interested in getting the break than the facts. He has done this before.
He was fired May 14, 2004 from the Mirror after paper published photographs that were fake. The photo graphs showed British Army abusing Iraqi prisoners. If he had learned from that in the past, he’d have shown more scrutiny in this interview. But he’s a fluffer, a sensationalist who seeks the Get.
“SORRY.. WE WERE HOAXED”
The Mirror was right to fire him. CNN should consider the same. Let him go back to entertainment tabloid where he’s got something to offer. He’s good at that, I guess. He’s not a good journalist by track record.
His involvement in Phone hacking…was that ethical? Does that give him right to lecture the snotty boy who dared show upon his show?
Toure Neblett: Author of Who’s Afraid of Post-Blackness?,
forward by Michael Eric Dyson and excerpts from over 100 interviews with people like Reverend Jesse Jackson, Cornel West, Henry Louis Gates, Melissa Harris-Perry, Kara Walker, Kehinde Wiley, Glenn Ligon, Malcolm Gladwell, Paul Mooney, New York Governor David Paterson, Harold Ford, Jr., Soledad O’Brien, Aaron McGruder, Greg Tate, Stanley Crouch, Kamala Harris, Chuck D, Questlove, and Mumia Abu-Jamal.
His writings have appeared in the New Yorker, the New York Times, Rolling Stone Magazine, the Best American Essays of 1999, the Best American Sports Writing of 2001, the Da Capo Best Music Writing of 2004.
Yeah, guess, he’s not a journalist because Piers Morgan said so. How quaint. Guess he doesn’t look like one either…how biased.
Then there is the esteemed Tabloidist, Piers Morgan, who has worked with South London News (1985–88), The Sun (1989–94), News of the World (1994–95), Daily Mirror (1995–2004). Certainly his work with the great objective journalism under Rupert Murdoch makes him superior to that little kid writer from Rolling Stone who doesn’t look like a journalist.
If this interview isn’t an ironic example of why we’re all talking about the Trayvon Martin case, nothing will be. Here we have a blowbag white male who is additionally foreign to this shore telling a black man that he knows the experience being discussed enough to render his opinion too. He’s covered it for a week of course! He’s lived here for 6 years of course! He’s just as qualified of course!
Its hard to blame people for not understanding journalism…they rarely see it.
I’d recommend, especially considering the Trayvon Martin killing…reading “Just the Facts: How “Objectivity” Came to Define American Journalism” by David Mindich. Mindich writes about how the major papers of the time would report on lynchings in a neutral manner with special attention paid on what the victim of the lynching did to precipitate the event. He argues this led to the normalization of lynching. Flash forward and you have Toure telling a foreign fluffer that he doesn’t understand this history as he’s playing the same damn game.
“I’m not misrepresenting his position, you simply can’t make up your f’n mind if he’s a journalist or not. ”
your huff is cute.
You’re frothing on your own images not my words. Toure is a journalist. He was asked by a person his thoughts about guilt in an interview. He said he thought the guy was guilty. You didn’t discuss a piece of his journalism stating “george zimmerman is guilty” or alluding to it either. His journalism is recognized as award winning so you’ll have to do the work on who Toure is to keep up your attack on his record. If you’re going to pin it on the comment in the interview, then you aren’t really discussing his journalism anyway.
As for your “its all relative dude” jab, I’m not saying its all relative exactly. I am saying Objective Journalism is a myth.
Stereotype in play here: “Toure did not sound anything like a journalist”
and what does a journalist sound like?
Think you have a very narrow view of what a journalist is that doesn’t comport with the facts.
“To suggest he was a journalist while doing so only makes him look like a clown.”
If you’re going to randomly discuss logical fallacies in argument in any way, then don’t engage in them. “look like a clown” doesn’t explain in a journalistic way what was wrong with his journalistic work. You are being a critic of his personal discussion with another man as if this reflects on his work as a journalist. And his only reason for being there was to explain his criticism of Piers Morgan. He did explain that criticism. But his journalism, since you obviously don’t know about it…isn’t based in criticizing Piers Morgan.
You act as if a person only does one thing in life and that is their stereotypical role for 24 hour engagement. Sorry bud, but if that’s the case, I bet you’re going to wind up with far less journalists because many of our finest are absolute assholes. Come to D.C. and sit with them in the different gaggles and watch their petty tribalism in play then explain this ‘ethical’ look a ‘journalist’ has.
So…what does a ‘journalist look like’?