It’s so ‘easy’ to hate some one or some group, to have an almost visceral distaste and hate, but it is so much more difficult to understand them… to really, really understand beyond that intuitive or instinctive disagreement.
What makes them tick? How did they form their ideology? What fuels and fosters their suspicions. For those who we disagree with, we shake our heads in amazement that they can be “so wrong.”
This ProPublica required time and guts to research, check, double check and write. For the mole, it required a whole lot of chutzpah.
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?
What’s perhaps more surprising is how these racial or ethnic attacks have been perpetuated (and tolerated?) in this burgeoning era of “I hate anyone who doesn’t agree with or look like me.” When did Trump’s America become a battlecry for racial hate?
What prompts anyone to think they are doing a civilized act by randomly chasing another human being and beating them for their looks or a presumption of their inherent evil? Who gets to decide this? What sort of person animal has that chutzpah?
We can wring our hands over recent political diatribes glorifying vigilantism. We can decry bravado which promotes the superiority of some and the inferiority of others whom we dislike (or fear), but when did vigilantism become acceptable?
The media is the fall guy for a host of problems, real and manufactured. The media is allowing itself to be pilloried. The adults (owners, publishers, editors, statesmen) in the media must speak up as influencers, critically and urgently to set the record straight about the generally outstanding job being performed every day.
Audiences must not be allowed to randomly assume or equate cable talk-TV with responsible reporting; audiences must be corrected when they make assumptions or fall for a diet of propaganda; knowledge stems from bonafide news (sourced, double-checked, and most important of all: presented without emotion or adverbs). Noise is not to be confused with “news.”
At least that is what I believe and taught my students.
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.
{Principally this post is aimed at my students but the profile of Teddy Banks makes for fascinating reading for all of us who create and post content}.
We appreciate the eye is always drawn to the headline, but do we pay as much attention to the font and appearance as we ought to? Similarly, how attractive and eye-catching are our lower thirds and identifying graphics? Do we just splat the words on our screens – or think about combinations of fonts, colors, and their juxtaposition as we might?
While this story is about a master craftsperson whose work admittedly is aimed at major motion picture studios, his thoughtful and artistic approach is worthy of your consideration too.
NYTimes columnist David Brooks’ annual “The Sidney Awards” is a fascinating collection of long-form journalism, again chosen this year from small and medium-sized publications.
A basic tenet of journalism is attributing statements, .pronouncements, proclamations, and declarations or expansions of war to those who made the decisions.
A basic rule for headline writers is to strive for clarity and completeness.
But in today’s (12.26.24) NYT is an apparent breakdown in both a headline and sub-headline that reads: “Israel Loosened Its Rules to Bomb Hamas Fighters, Killing Many More Civilians Surprised by Oct. 7 and fearful of another attack, Israel weakened safeguards meant to protect noncombatants, allowing officers to endanger up to 20 people in each airstrike. One of the deadliest bombardments of the 21st century followed.”
The problem here is the headline. The country made this decision? All the elected officials? All its citizens of every stripe and party? Everyone? Was there a vote? A referendum? The whole kit and caboodle? Israel loosened its rules?
It is partially inaccurate and in that, it feels unclear and imprecise.
The story’s lede properly attributes the decision to “Israel’s military leadership” but that’s still vague. Someone in the chain of command is responsible for making this change. Shouldn’t s/he/they be named and take responsibility for their actions?
Just as a rule of journalism, decisions like this are made by people on behalf of a country’s policies. Don’t the readers of the Times deserve to know the “who” is in charge here? And, if there is concern for the safety of the decision-makers, then state that in the body of the story.
Just a thought: we should demand a completeness in all reporting, including headlines, lest any one misunderstand what is already a complicated and complex war.
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.
“Designed to absorb “recycled Liquid Death water” (translation: urine) during concerts, the Pit Diaper promises to keep fans dry and comfortable with leak-proof technology and odor-neutralizing materials. They also come with adjustable waist and hip sizes.”
But who even cares about a random woman relieving herself in public at a music concert? That depends on one’s view of what’s urgent. How did the story get so much attention? Presumably, there must have been a leak
Clearly, the story whets the interest of the Chronicle editors. Surely, the trickle-down effect for the PR agency and manufacturer is one of relief as the product is flowing off store shelves.
First, there were Chinese weather balloons that turned out to be spy satellites. Today, there are drones over New Jersey and an Iranian ghost ship patrolling off the East Coast.
“They” say there’s nothing to worry about. But the government can’t tell us for sure what those drones are doing above New Jersey and Ohio.
Nothing so exciting has happened in the sky above New Jersey since Orson Welles’s adaptation of “War of the Worlds” at Grovers Mills in 1938.
The local police and sheriff are mobilized. So too is a cadre of citizen observers. Thank goodness the Coast Guard is out there with binoculars searching for Mideastern warships that have apparently wandered west of the Mediterranean Sea. Additional FBI agents are being urgently dispatched to investigate. The FAA placates the public saying the brouhaha is only about fixed-wing airplanes. But a government spokesperson says that while he can assure us everything is safe, he can’t say what is really happening. But, if he doesn’t really know, how can we trust him to be assuring of anything?
The president-elect speaks. The White House communications office comments.
Cable talk TV has filled hours with speculation from aviation and espionage ‘experts’ and yet, now on day umpteen of the crisis, why is our knowledge so muddled, the government’s response so clouded (think: obfuscation), and our ears are ringing?
I guess among the Trump transition pronouncements, Congressional befuddlement over endorsement, and mysterious drones hovering over the Garden State, it’s little wonder what really captures the audience’s imagination.
petershaplenproductions.com 