I won’t be interviewing anyone from the NAACP or the Urban League or the Interfaith Network. I won’t be talking to the police chief or the mayor or a councilmember. I won’t reach out to a senator or a conflict negotiator or a psychologist for why this latest violence in South Carolina happened because all I’ll hear is everything I’ve heard before. And right now, I don’t have much stomach for platitudes. Maybe later, but not right now.
As Jon Stewart prepares to leave The Daily Show, actor Mark Ruffalo tonight performed a three minute roast of Stewart’s notoriously poor attention to the movies and books of his guests. From Patrick Stewart to Maggie Gyllenhaal, the segment showed how Stewart not only showed he rarely if ever read the books or watched the movies of his guests, but how he often didn’t even know the roles they played or the major characters they created. I blogged about this in what I thought was a excellent flaying of him by for this kind of neglect by Jennifer Lawrence.
Interviewers should spend a lot of time preparing to talk to the people who agree to talk to them because they don’t want to look or sound like idiots. But only one thing seems to be more important in the eyes of the audience than preparation, and that is personality.
A lot of interviewers think and have been trained to believe that seriousness equals credibility. We think any emotions we show makes people not take us seriously. We think, like in the fields of politics, science and the law, a dispassionate demeanor is much more believable than a passionate one.
But Jon Stewart found the balls to the wall balance between New Jersey punk and New York attorney. Since 1999, he’s gotten away with saying shit that is literally peppered with the word “shit” and the audience loves him for it. So if he doesn’t know all of the scenes in a movie or all of the plotlines in a book, so the hell what? He has charmed his way through so many blank spots with so many “A listers” that they’ve probably come to not expect anything different. It’s who he is.
But he also made up for those flubs when Donald Rumsfeld, Bill O’Reilly, Pervez Musharraf and Tony Blair among other sacrifices came onto his show. Stewart showed he understood the complex policy issues well enough to eviserate many of them for their unpopular or untenable positions.
It was fun to watch clip after clip of him mush mouthing his way through his artistic cluelessness. At the end, in a turnabout, Ruffalo pretended to not know anything about Stewart’s 2014 cinematic effort, “Rosewater” and spoke about it in platitudes. It was cutting, fitting and funny.
But Jon Stewart can be like the old Peter Falk character, “Columbo”; you think he’s bumbling until he suddenly rips your throat out. All of us behind the mic should be so bumbling.
Boy, am I going to miss him.
We have all been conditioned to believe that when a TV or radio program begins at the “top” or “bottom” of the hour, it means the program is starting at exactly 1 p.m. or 5:30 a.m. or whenever.
But it’s not that simple.
First, understand that official United States civilian time is maintained by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in Boulder, Colorado. Those are the people who are responsible for ensuring the official weights and measures for the US, including time. And precision is important to these folks. Time, i.e. the length of a second, is determined based on the vibrations of Cesium 133 atoms. This was represented by a clock NIST called the “F1″. But in 2014, they supplemented the “F1″ clock with the “F2″, which unlike the previous clock, will not lose one second in 300 million years, making it three times more accurate than the F1.
Meanwhile, US time is synchronized with the rest of the world via something called Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), although it used to be commonly referred to as Greenwich Mean Time (GMT). Greenwich, by the way, is a real place. It is the location of the Royal Observatory in a municipality of London. GMT was the international civil time standard until recent years when there has been a hot debate about what GMT is and whether it deserves to be the standard it has historically been.
These two may not seem to have much in common; the measurement within time versus coordination of the World’s clocks. But they are intimately connected. To demonstrate this, imagine hearing a band playing Beyonce’s “Single Ladies”. Then imagine another band starts playing it, but is one beat off from the first band. The beat within both songs is the same length but the starting point of the song is different. Which beat should each group of musicians keep time to, their own or that of the other band?
That can be a problem for time keepers and, coincidentally, broadcasters. For decades, FCC regulations required holders of broadcast licenses to announce who and where their stations are before beginning a program. If you are watching KOIN in Portland, Oregon, when the previous program ends but within a minute of so of a new program, you see promos for upcoming local and network shows. Then, there will be a graphic somewhere on the screen that says you are watching KOIN 6 in Portland, Oregon. Or, if you’re listening to KOPB, you’ll hear promos, then the list of affiliate stations of Oregon Public Broadcasting and their individual locations. By law, you must see and hear these very close to “top” of the hour.
Then the next program begins, supposedly, “straight up”. But if you open the NIST’s time widget before the stations identify themselves, you notice that neither the radio or the TV program starts at the NIST’s official “top” of the hour. In the accompanying video, the CBS and NPR networks the locals go to are about 12 seconds behind the NIST. Twelve seconds might not seem like a big deal. But since billions of dollars are invested in advertising, technology and legislation for time to be both accurate and consistent, why isn’t it a big deal? Otherwise, why have a standard at all?
From simply an economic standpoint, how can stations afford to be off by up to 12 seconds an hour considering how important every moment is for generating revenue from commercials. I blogged about that a few years ago.
Anyway, I’ve had the larger question since my amateur radio days when I used to “DX” WWV, an NIST radio service that used to broadcast official time. If the NIST is the “official” US civilian timekeeper, why don’t broadcasters follow it?
*Accompanying audio and video are used under the Fair Use doctrine for the purposes of criticism, comment and news reporting.
Andrew Jennings is a Scottish investigative reporter who has been following the mismanagement and corruption at the European soccer agency, FIFA, for nearly 15 years. In a recent interview with NPR’s Melissa Block, he said he provided the FBI with internal financial documents in 2009 in an effort to help the Americans prosecute FIFA’s wrongdoing. The FBI, along with Interpol and a number of other law enforcement agencies around the world began arresting FIFA executives on Monday, June 1st, 2014.
Ms. Block asked Mr. Jennings if he felt he had violated his journalist integrity by providing those documents. Mr. Jennings adamantly said no, saying FIFA is a corrupt organization, everyone knew it was corrupt and little was being accomplished in the way of internal reform, which he believed it needed desperately. This again brings up the question of how much should a journalist insert themselves into the story and it reminds me of a story from J-school which is built on much historical precedence.
A photographer is photographing a protestor who is preparing to self-immolate himself. What should the photographer do? Should he keep taking pictures as the person sets themselves on fire in the most desperate act of political protest, or should he drop the camera and save the person from what would certainly be a graphic, horrible and painful death? According to Wikipedia, journalist and photographer Malcolm Brown won the World Press Photo of the Year in 1963 for choosing to take just such a photo. In it, a Vietnamese monk named Thich Quang Duc set himself ablaze in protest against the persecution of Buddhists by the South Vietnamese government of President Ngo Dinh Diem.
There have been 133 self-immolations for political reasons and 10 for economic reasons since Brown’s photo. Journalism has since weighed in on the journalist’s responsibility to intervene. The Society of Professional Journalists cautions journalists in a release from January 2010: “Report the story; don’t become a part of it,” Even in a crisis, the SPJ says journalists must be objective. Actions the SPJ defines as not objective include advocacy, self-promotion, offering favors for news and interviews, injecting oneself into the story, or creating news events.
But Roy Peter Clark, a Pulitzer Prize winning author who recently wrote for the journalism ethics organization, the Poynter Institute, said “That standard – to observe, cover, but not intervene – is surely not absolute.” He continues, “There are those rare moments when a reporter (or other professional, such as a psychiatrist) realizes that life or public safety is on the line. That professional may choose to assume a different role, to put on a citizen’s hat rather than a journalist’s”. Journalists have a responsibility to tell the story in a way that insures their credibility by not showing bias. But they also have a responsibility to be human beings. That can be a tricky wire to walk.
What is the life or public safety issue regarding FIFA? Some have argued that the thousands of immigrant workers that have died in Qatar’s hellish heat as they prepare the country for a possibly ill-gotten 2022 World Cup tournament might be cause for intervention. Others like Mr. Jennings, simply see organizations like FIFA stealing what is precious to the people, and believe the people don’t deserve to be lied to or stolen from.
“What would you do”, asks Mr. Clark, “if you saw someone trying to set himself on fire? I would probably run for my own safety, yell like crazy, and point out the danger to others. I know Good Samaritans, braver than I, who would try to stop the action. I doubt I would take out my cell phone and make a video of the self-immolation”.
Mr. Jennings made a similar choice. Under extraordinary circumstances, he heeded the call of the FBI to help them put out a different kind of fire.
As a journalist, people are always trying to get your attention. A perennial candidate wants an interview everytime they run for everything from Congressman to dogcatcher. A citizen wants to tell you about how a conspiracy by the DMV is keeping him and only him from getting his license.
There are lots of stories that don’t make the news director’s radar and not for the lack of trying by the people pitching them. But other stories are so over the top true that you assume everybody must know about them. Sort of like when you see a flipped over car on fire on the freeway; surely somebody has called 911. So you don’t need to, right?
Somebody sent me an email with a link to a story that reported that Google Maps is currently having a naming problem with the residence of the President. Specifically, if you type the “N” word (ending with “a” instead of “er”), the White House and the area surrounding it in Washington, D.C. appear. This was as of 8 p.m. PST on May 19th.
What kind of story would this be to tell? News? Public information? For some, it certainly seems to be entertainment. How much attention should something like this get? How did it happen? What is being done to fix it? And who are the proud, God-sent, shining examples of humanity who did it?
It would be nice if somebody told me this is just some unfortunate mistake. That this isn’t really from the company that pledges to “Do No Evil” even if they do sell out protestors in authoritarian regimes. That it’s some kind of terrible joke. TMZ says its no joke.
Burning car, flipped, in the middle of the freeway.
Has anybody called or are there just too many of them for people to bother?
Jeb Bush told Megyn Kelly on Fox News that he, along with many people in the Senate in 2001, would’ve done exactly what his brother, former President Bush did when confronted with 911; pursue a course of war. That was certainly a clear answer. But later, Mr. Bush, while being interviewed by Sean Hannity, said he didn’t understand the question as it was posed by Ms. Kelly, called it a” hypothetical” and said he didn’t know what he would’ve done.
Perhaps supporters of the war who are also Bush’s supporters put pressure on him to recant. But his follow up is one of those things that make you go, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm …
But before it looks like this is bagging on Jeb Bush, consider:
– Theantimedia.org said Rand Paul was against the Drug War before he was for it
– The New American says General Norman Schwartzkopf was against the 1991 Gulf War before he was for it
– Twitchy.com says John Kerry was for the Iraq war before he was against it
– Fox News says former Senator and Presidential candidate John Edwards was for the war in Iraq before he was against it.
– The Daily Kos says Mitt Romney was for the Vietnam War before he was against it.
– Outside the Beltway says Senator John McCain was for trading taliban prisoners for Army Sgt. Beau Bergdahl before he was against it
– Wizbangblog says former President Bill Clinton was for the war in Iraq before he was against it.
– Politicususa.com says Paul Ryan was for the war in Syria before he was against it
– Foreign Policy magazine says President Obama says he was against the authorization for the war before he was for it
– Politicalwire.com says former Vice President Dick Cheney was against the Iraq was before he was for it …
… and on and on.
Clearly, Mr. Bush doesn’t want to throw his brother under the bus for the 12-year Iraq War. But you don’t hear Republicans speaking of George W. with the same reverence of Ronald Reagan. That says something about how party faithful on the right see the Bush Doctrine.
The larger point is politicians change their minds for their own reasons like all of the rest of us. Except when we do it, it isn’t necessarily a judgement on our character or mental faculties. It won’t necessarily destroy our lives or give people license to judge us for the rest of our lives because we were human.
Interviewers need to bring up inconsistencies like this during subsequent interviews. To not is to deny constituents, whether they’re listening to business leaders or politicians, the opportunity to truly understand their thought process. And once recants like this are being discussed, the interviewer needs to press the question to the edge of journalistic decorum.