Bland. Milk toast. Banal. White bread. Safe – in an era which demands thoughtful, novel and strong leadership shouldn’t there be another option?
The two front-runners for leadership of the Democratic National Committee seem to be two sides of the same-old, hackneyed coin which was battered and bruised in the November 24 election… a tarnished token which shows little spark, energy or life since.
Quoting Sunday’s 12.5.25 NYTimes, “The two candidates who have emerged as front-runners to become D.N.C. chair, Ken Martin of Minnesota and Ben Wikler of Wisconsin, are both middle-aged white men from the upper Midwest and chair of their state parties whose politics are well within the Democratic mainstream.”
I’m sorry, was that a typo? Didn’t they mean to write mausoleum?
My concern has nothing to do with DEI or political correctness. Still, rather, I am just surprised that the party is choosing to act more like an ostrich in defeat than a righteous, rigorous contestant who wants another crack at the champ who just flattened them at the ballot box. (If you’ll forgive the tortured mixed metaphors).
Washington beltway wags often speak of the best and the brightest minds populating the halls of power. (Of course, look where that got us in the Vietnam era). But I do wonder if this is really the best to be mustered for what is surely among the most difficult and seemingly unattractive jobs in DC?
All I can hear echoing is “4 More Years” – a disconcerting call considering the disarray in the Democratic Party hierarchy and populace.
In the contemporary era of “fake” news, alternative facts, and presumed media bias, what constitutes news to you?
How do you define newsworthy? Is it primarily what affirms or echoes your defined set of beliefs? What or whoever endorses your accepted truths? What boosts your self-esteem and opinions?
For some, traditionally, what’s considered news includes large and catastrophic events; proclamations of elected officials; wars and civil strife; as well as the work, decisions, or actions by anyone (or thing) that consequentially affect our lives, families, and communities, whether for good or bad. We note those who influence our lives, both positively and negatively.
Admittedly for some with a more limited scope, the only news they consume is whatever is positive and non-threatening in a world which increasingly seems so negative and beyond their control or effect.
The cliché of news being a first draft of history is also a truism. Equally true is the role of obituaries for and appreciation of people who played a role, even accidentally or tangentially, in history
I believe the most impactful stores are always about people – first and foremost. We best relate to those of our species. (Perhaps our pets second). Who’s interesting, perhaps entertaining, provocative, intriguing, or offensive?
Our most frequent triggers: who (and what) do we fear or make us angry?
Let’s take a deeper look at something which, on first blush, you may not consider newsworthy.
I pose this question: Can anything about the 1962 execution of Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann be newsworthy, or even interesting today?
Consider this:
An elderly man named Shalom Nagar died last month. His death received scant attention. It was reported in the Israeli press, on the BBC, in the New York Times… but little mention appeared elsewhere. Most news gatekeepers determined that a story featuring a bit player in a global event 6-decades ago would generate or even deserve interest today. No buzz. Few clicks. The story was too old, or too difficult to tell briefly, and few remember or much care.
Who was he?
Shalom Nagar was the reluctant 23-year-old Israeli guard who hanged Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann. Shanghaied by the authorities and press-ganged onto the execution team, Nagar’s job was to release the trap door on the gallows.
Nagar’s story and Nazi Adolf Eichmann’s are intractably entwined in history. It is ironic that such a notorious war criminal who caused such suffering for the living and who, even after his death, still haunted and caused lifelong dismay – he scarred even his executioner.
A simple guy – a prison guard of no particular rank – a schlub selected against his will to do a job that no one else would accept… Nagar did that job as assigned. He was, to use the phrase, “just following orders” too.
He was the little story in the larger event, the small story in the big one. But can’t we all relate to something similar in our own life’s journey?
According to the NYTimes obit by Sam Roberts (Dec.5, 24), “Eichmann’s face was white as chalk, his eyes were bulging and his tongue was dangling out,” Mr. Nagar told Mishpacha magazine in 2005. “The rope rubbed the skin off his neck, and so his tongue and chest were covered with blood.” He added: “I didn’t know that when a person is strangled all the air remains in his stomach, and when I lifted him, all the air that was inside came up and the most horrifying sound was released from his mouth — ‘baaaaa!’ I felt the Angel of Death had come to take me, too.”
Continuing from Roberts’ obit, “In discussing the execution with Mishpacha magazine, Mr. Nagar invoked Amalek, the biblical archenemy nation of ancient Israel, to justify his task. In spite of the trauma, he said, he appreciated the value of his experience: God “commands us to wipe out Amalek, to ‘erase his memory from under the sky’ and ‘not to forget.’ I have fulfilled both.”
There is an irony here. I think that irony is what triggered media coverage; it is what caught my eye as a reporter/producer/editor/and teacher.
For executing someone convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity, the executioner too suffered mightily.
Nagar’s burden of taking a life became, apparently, a life-long cross for him to bear.
We presume Nagar found his peace, as is shared in Sam Roberts’ appreciation. That does add context to a larger story as it reveals little-known-till-now-nuggets of history. And in that is an irony.
More than a half century after Eichmann’s execution, I submit a backstory is still interesting and informative – offering new details, or a previously unknown perspective or consequence. It meets my working definition of being news-worthy, being interesting and informative, shedding new light on people and events in our worlds.
My definition expands: Newsworthy is something that makes me pause and think as I take note of the evolving history.
So, what do you think? Was the New York Times, the BBC and the few others right to consider this newsworthy for their audiences?
Would you have made the same decision, or not, and why?
Once upon a time not so long ago, crime victims and their perpetrators were routinely headlined and included in the narrative of news stories.
Then, in a more sensitive and enlightened decision, many in the media decided not to name victims of sexual assault, or molestation, among other crimes to protect what might remain of their privacy. The same rule of not naming juveniles remains a standard.
So why is the perpetrator of the horrific crime in New Orleans being bantered about with his association with ISIS?
Isn’t that connection and publicity precisely what he was seeking? Isn’t that why he chose to attack a public place instead of harming his own family?
If the decision is not to name individuals to deprive them of their notoriety, an argument could be made to repeatedly or redundantly decline to trumpet ISIS in conjunction with the horrific events in New Orleans.
His association (no name needed as we all know the subject of this story can be found in a web search) is a legitimate fact worthy of being included for the record. Once, maybe twice. But I get a feeling of almost glee in the intonation of some anchors who nod soberly as they do more for propaganda than any soldiers of ISIS might ever hope for.
Just a thought… Moderation can be a good thing, and editorial judgment can be too.
Monday’s more analytical China Global South Project’s “Sorry, Vietnam is NOT Going to Be the “Next China” presents a more sober view. Bylined by Eric Olander is the proposition that the US policy-making community’s expectation that Vietnam will emerge as the next China is delusional. Even with the best US intentions, ‘friend-shoring’ won’t cut the Chinese Goliath out of the tariff-trade equation.
Olander’s argument is that Vietnam’s unemployment rate is just 2.27% limiting the number of available workers. He writes VN doesn’t have either the supply chain or logistics network required to replace China and what’s more, so many of the raw materials used by Vietnamese manufacturing come from its northern neighbor.
Damien Cave’s Times story is more encompassing than Olander’s succinct analysis, but both are well-worth reading to gain a far deeper understanding among the hype, hope, and reality and to appreciate the complex global implications.
Watching the news… I see parallels between the fall of South Vietnam in the spring 1975 and the equally stunning collapse of the Syrian regime of Bashar Al-Assad within the last fortnight. I see similarities in political regimes rotted by corruption and propped up by foreign powers motivated by their own fears, ideologies and self-interests. I see decades long totalitarianism – over a half century for Syria – and 30 years of foreign colonialism in Indochina post WW2 – finally unraveling as their once vaunted armies abandon their posts and tear away their uniforms to obscure their identities. I see an apparent collapse of the intelligence organization, or its willingness to deceive its minders. I see jails being liberated of political prisoners and senses of joy and relief by a populace which feels it is finally free to embrace the future.
One difference… the global press corps has done a responsible job of years-long critical coverage of the Assad regime… I don’t remember an American press corps equally critical of its South Vietnamese puppets culminating with the fall of “Big Minh” (Dương Văn Minh)
(And yes… there are parallels too between the collapse of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan under President Ashraf Ghani and reinstatement of the Islamic Emirate… among other world conflicts…)
It proves the stink and the plague of corruption at the core will rightly, inevitably be unsustainable. But we should not be shocked… tho we should feel profound sadness for the pain and suffering endured by its citizens, the ultimate victims.
What I find tragic is the American press corp has largely abandoned its foreign posts decried for being economically unsustainable and for management’s assessment that US isolationism doesn’t warrant the time, space or expense of offering a diet of global news. We are too ignorant, in some cases like ostriches choosing the bury our heads, lest we confront realities which are too unpleasant for conversation or action that loom in our path.
Is there anything on our horizon which augurs change?
A strain of social media appears to be legitimizing the NY insurance CEO’s assassin as a hero; he’s a Don Quixote character striking a revenge-blow against the establishment of big insurance.
But… free speech is great, of course, but do we now turn or subscribe to social media to affirm – as judge and jury – what price should be paid for a company’s conduct?
Is this legitimate media? Is this even civilized discourse? Is assassination in the street a new form of justice that should be considered, much less praised?
Social media has a value, but some of these posts more closely resemble the revenge-seeking, blood-thirsty crowd at the Roman coliseum signaling their cavalier preference for some one else’s life with a thumbs down.
When is enough babbling enough? I don’t see this as a blow to the insurance titans that will in some way compel them to review their policies to be more human. Is a slaughter in the streets in any way a more human approach to life…
This company might be horrible.. their leadership culture avaricious… but can you legitimately ascribe a multitude of business decisions to just one man?
I’d remind these new media writers who seek to be opinion leaders to also consider that he was a husband, a father… he didn’t deserve to die like a dog in the gutter. How can any one accept this as legitimate media and not just decry it as malicious and unworthy gossip? At what point… do we decide that garnering clicks for saying outrageous things are just wrong?
It’s not permissible for any adult to make a child cry — anywhere, and especially not by a professional team of journalists on live, network television and stay on the shot, continuing the interview even as the guest breaks down.
Shame on the TODAY show. Shame on the hosts, the field producers, and the control room because they should have known better.
NBC’s TODAY Show interviewed a survivor of yesterday’s shooting at a Florida high school beginning by asking the condition of her best friend who was shot next to her.
The young woman, just a junior of perhaps 15 or 16 years, softly answered, “she didn’t make it.”
As any one would, her lips quivered. Her eyes watered. She wiped her face with the sleeve of he sweatshirt.
Yet NBC chose to stay on a single picture of her for an interminable several seconds before going to double boxes showing the hosts in Korea along side the student as she broke down and tried to regain composure.
Rather than simply end the interview, NBC chose to continue. It felt more exploitative than journalistic inquiry.
Rather than say, “we’ll be back in a moment” with the decency to allow her to recover her composure, NBC stayed on their shot to continue the interview. Whether the young girl wanted to stay or go, as a child she was given no choice, the adults offered her no option.
Would it have been reasonable for her to know she had a choice?
Would it be defensible for the network to say, “well, she could have asked to end it?”
To her credit, the young woman did recover but had to do so before millions of the audience.
To her credit, the young woman was an eye witness who had valuable insight to share. And she did.
It’s just not to NBC’s credit that it risked causing her trauma and embarrassment in order to save their interview. They continued the interview while professing “their sorrow for her loss,” but the fact is, they continued.
An unanswered question? Why didn’t the producer in Florida tell the control room and anchors in New York NOT to ask about her friend, that “the friend had died.”
Or worse, did they know and chose to ask the question? Whenever I produced network live shots, and I was responsible for hundreds over 30+ years, I made it my responsibility to tell the program when/if there were ‘hot buttons’ to be aware of, mindful for, and how to handle lest we trespass over someone’s emotional line.
An unanswered question? Was there any consideration of changing the program as it played across other time zones? A thought that perhaps if this was a bit raw when aired live in the East, it ought to be edited or deleted or framed with a new introduction before it played in the Central, Mountain or Pacific time zones?
And for any who might say this is fair game, that “we need to see the faces of victims” and “understand the horror of a school shooting, in order to appreciate the damage.” Phooey.
There is never an excuse for professional journalists to add to a victim’s pain.
There is never a sufficient apology for “not knowing” what someone is about to say, especially on live TV.
There is a higher duty for all professional journalists to make their coverage as immersive as possible, but always within the boundaries of human decency.
Sadly it seems that NBC’s TODAY show plumbed new depths of what appears to be exploitative television.
The announcement that The New York Times and Washington Post will cooperate on a new platform to manager reader’s comments is no doubt a leap forward in building opinion sharing and engagement. I suggest the $3.9m price tag paid for with money from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation however, going to do very little to advance knowledge or – as it is promoted – advance innovative journalism.
Ask any one what they think and no doubt they will be happy to tell you whether they have expertise or not or first-hand knowledge. Talk radio demonstrates this hour after hour. We have become a nation of people who want to share opinions before the full scope of a story has been reported. Frank Bruni wrote this. “We no longer have news. We have springboards for commentary. We have cues for Tweets. Something happens, and before the facts are even settled, the morals are deduced and the lessons drawn. The story is absorbed into agendas. Everyone has a preferred take on it, a particular use for it. And as one person after another posits its real significance, the discussion travels so far from what set it in motion that the truth — the knowable, verifiable truth — is left in the dust.
Here’s the point – and no, this isn’ t a tome on the need to develop alternative funding models for contemporary journalism although that is a worthy subject for future consideration. The point is simple — once upon a time and not that long ago, major global media entities paid reporters to work and live all over the world in bureaus and to report on the news and business and politics and personalities and comings and goings that went on in those locales. That investment in human intelligence and resources paid dividends in the reportage, the understanding, the depth and context of what was happening. That investment helped to assure that there would be multiple reports – with differing views and yes, sometimes opinions, but it was all first-hand knowledge. That investment helped assure that individuals anywhere in the world could see and hear and read professionally acquired news. I embrace citizen journalism. I was among the very first to introduce it along with my colleague Mitch Ratcliffe in an ill-fated and under funded experiment called correspondents.org more long before it became ‘fashionable.’ But citizen journalism is not enough by itself. And asking for readers/viewers comments – even managing them superbly – is insufficient too.
So there goes almost $4m to build a platform to aggregate, manage and distribute the thoughts of the average man… the common Joe… the guy on the street who can’t wait to tell us what he thinks… but do I care? Do you? Really? Again quoting Frank Bruni, “Grandstanding is booming as traditional news gathering struggles to survive: It’s more easily summoned, more cheaply produced. It doesn’t require opening bureaus around the country or picking up correspondents’ travel expenses or paying them for weeks on end just to dig. So it fills publications, websites and television airtime the way noodles stretch out a casserole, until we’re looking at a media meal that’s almost all Hamburger Helper and no beef.”
We can bemoan this absence of beef but we’re not investing in making a difference.
Today’s decision by a Federal court judge ordering Oracle and Google to disclose who they paid to write about their “JAVA trial” poses interesting questions about corporate media management — who pays for what to be written and what extent does that have on influence within the industry? What would you expect that answer to be? All Things D’s filing Judge Orders Google and Oracle to Disclose Who They Paid to Write About Java Trial has the story quoting “Judge William Alsup, who presided over the case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, wrote in his order that he’s “concerned that the parties and/or counsel herein may have retained or paid print or Internet authors, journalists, commentators or bloggers who have and/or may publish comments on the issues in this case.” We’ve seen purchased coverage before in terms of trade press, I’m thinking especially of the sychophants who write gushingly about the latest Apple release and who (masquerading as reporters) would leap to their feet to applaud Steve Jobs. Other companies (Cisco’s news site) commissions articles by well-known and reputable authors — though one might assume they are not (often) going to either write nor would Cisco (or others likely) post unflattering comments, reviews, analysis or criticisms. This is coverage purchased to put forth the issue in the most flattering light possible under the circumstances. It is corporate communications imitating news. It’s a lot like Sorkin’s The Newsroom imitating real news rooms. BP Oil was insidious in the way it aggregated media coverage during the gulf oil spill while inserting reports from its own commissioned reporters…. it did make a disclaimer but only in the tiniest of print. It was clever – in the midst of critical news it seemed unexpected to read glowing accounts of the importance of big oil to the community and their years of service and commitment to the economy and residents. I don’t argue that this is happening – I find it refreshing that a federal judge is concerned enough to demand a review into how pervasive it may have been during his trial. I find Judge Alsup’s order compelling. His full order can be found here .
petershaplenproductions.com 