BY MICHAEL S. JOHNSON
WASHINGTON POST’S FOUL LANGUAGE
The Post ombudsman reported this week that the newsroom is arguing over whether to include foul language in its reporting.
There are a lot of reasons to maintain the current standard, but the most compelling to me is the ever-widening behavioral sinkhole our society is already in. We live in a media environment in which it is almost mandatory that you behave badly to get coverage. Protesters get more attention if they beat up a cop or burn a car. Politicians get more attention if they call somebody a liar or claim their adversary is cheat or a racist. People who truly do not deserve coverage get it for being brazen, abusive, disrespectful or rude, while others who make reasoned, intellectual arguments and actually work at something worthwhile, get ignored. Why encourage more of it? Why sanction more mediocrity, less civility and the dumbing-down of politics and social interaction even more?
Speaking of the ombudsman…
POSTSCRIPT ON PERRY AND THE ROCK
There is a commentary on NewGOPForum.com about the media coverage of the Rick Perry and the Rock incident. There was a lot wrong with the Washington Post treatment of Rick Perry’s rock, but one of the more bizarre sidebars was a comment made by the Post’s ombudsman Patrick Pexton.
In his analysis, Pexton made several confusing comments about the number of African-American legislators with whom Perry served and the failure of Perry to request a retraction.
But this one made my head spin: “I covered the Maryland General Assembly during the same period, in the late 1980s. Maryland is not Texas, but it had then, as now, many conservative rural lawmakers—from the lower Eastern Shore and Southern and Western Maryland—some of them Democrats, some Republicans. If it had come out in late 1980s that a lawmaker was taking colleagues to a duck hunting property off the Chesapeake Bay or a deer hunting camp in Western Maryland with that offensive name, the story would have made both The Post and the Baltimore Sun.” Huh?
THE NON-CANDIDACY OF SARAH PALIN
Sarah Palin isn’t running for President. The odds of her running were better than getting hit by a meteor. The reasoning for her running didn’t exist. The practicality of running faded into no-man’s land a couple of months ago, when her daughter spilled the beans that she had already made up her mind. The media didn’t really pursue that because it would have ruined all the fun.
So the woman Politico called Hurricane Sarah remains today a thespian of great talent, but a politician with no future. Palin Inc will continue to make millions, until the shine wears off. She has been the beneficiary of marketing genius, either hers or someone else’s. She has managed the media and mesmerized thousands and thousands of loyal followers with her mastery of the political perceptions. It will be fascinating now to see what the next season of the Palin soap will do in the marketplace. Without portfolio her image may flicker and fade very rapidly. She was good, though. She spawned a whole new vanguard of spirited, attractive, pseudo-populist political celebrities who were able to raise themselves up as credible national leaders without even the minimal qualifications.
And, what about those devotees who gave of their hard-earned money to advance her candidacy and her career? What about the millions she has raised, maybe under false pretences, assuming with some justification that she never had any intense interest in running for President, only profiteering from the prospect of it.
Where do those who want one—and there may not be many–apply for a refund?
PRESS COVERAGE OF FREED HIKERS SHORT ON DETAIL
America was relieved when the two remaining hikers were freed last month after 2 years in Iranian prison, but there was a lot left out of the stories about their capture, incarceration and release. I’ve been waiting for follow-up reporting, but have not seen much. I am still not entirely sure what they were doing in Iraq in 2009, how long they had been there and why they were hiking so close to the Iranian border. Their behavior on its face seemed incredibly irresponsible. Did they have a guide? How were they captured? To what extent were the U.S. Government and other countries involved in the negotiations? What deals were made in the process? Did the United States or any other countries make concessions to Iran in order to secure their freedom? Who paid their “bail”? Were they extensively debriefed? What was learned? Maybe coverage has answered these questions and I just haven’t seen it. If not, no doubt Hollywood will produce a movie about their adventure, and then, as is the case with Hollywood movies and docudramas, we’ll surely get all the facts.