By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources, (http://www.originalsources.com)
July 23, 1999
I'm not a person given to mood swings, but by late afternoon yesterday, I was in such a funk that my son, who is also my publisher, took one look at me and said, "Mom, what's the matter? Worried about the world falling apart?"
I mumbled something and went off to think about it. My goal, as a journalist, is to provide accurate, timely, easily readable information to a nation of very busy people. Earlier in the day I had gotten an e-mail from a young person who wanted my opinion of a piece she had written as a response to my column entitled "Was John Jr's Plane Crash News or Entertainment?"
Thinking that the author, whom I'll call NL, who described herself as a "young journalist" was probably 10-14 years old, based on the piece I received, I sent back an analysis which I hoped would not discourage her, but would point out the problems with the piece she'd written - which was entirely emotional, with no facts to back it up.
She wrote back to let me know that she was NOT that young and had, in fact, been "professionally recognized by a Pulitzer finalist." Obviously she felt insulted that I thought she was a kid. So much for the quality of education in America today. Her piece was both an emotional tribute to John F. Kennedy, Jr and a criticism of columnists (obviously like me) who "only rely on the cold facts, which have led to a few disturbing trends."
I have to plead guilty to relying on facts in my column. Only, facts to me are friendly things, not cold things. Facts, I believe, if known, help people learn, grow and avoid making the same mistakes over and over which enables them to live happier, more productive and less stressful lives. The quality of life in a nation of free people who elect those who rule the nation, depends on facts, and, therefore, I highly recommend them. NL wrote:
"No one ever forgot how he (JFK, Jr.) was as a child, and therefore people saw themselves in him. Since his earliest days, he was seen as a child of hope. (Perhaps this was because he was the son of one of the most influential presidents of all time). As the Kennedy's fell upon more tragedy, and controversy...JFK Jr. seemed unscathed. As he grew up, the collective society really grew attached to him (thanks to the media attention), and curiosity began to set in."
Now, John F. Kennedy was hardly "one of the most influential presidents of all time" and most of the Kennedy family's "tragedies" were not something they just fell into. They were the result of their life style. Sen. Ted Kennedy's episode at Chappaquidick would not have happened, for example, had he been home with his wife and children, rather than partying with other Kennedy males with a bevy of unmarried beauties.
Of course, thanks to a friendly media which helped Ted Kennedy avoid the consequences of his actions, nothing much was learned from that incident and consequently, the next generation of Kennedy males carried on the risk-taking, boozing, woman chasing tradition.
But the main point she made in her piece bothered me even more and made me wonder, if her view was typical of today's college educated youth, if there was any hope of pulling the world out of the media desert it seems to be in. It was a defense of emotionalism, not facts, in news that she was touting.
What was the real reason for the circus we have been subjected to by broadcast media?
NL tried to explain:
"Another thing that was too often neglected when JFK Jr was alive was his dedication to community service. I can think of thousands of kids who would have had a very miserable life in NYC if it wasn't, in part, for the help of JFK Jr. I'm not trying to say that he saved the world, but he sure did try to make it better. (And I don't believe he did that just out of protocol or even for good PR)"Looking at his life, he was not a "Kennedy". Since he was a young boy he knew that he was his own man. Once, when he was a very small boy, he was found crying, one of his uncles said "Stop that, Kennedy's don't cry" John Jr. piped up and said "Well, THIS Kennedy cries!". He was his own Kennedy. (Half Bouvier) And therefore he was not involved in the typical Kennedy mischief. (Let's look back, he was not an alcoholic, he didn't rape anyone, he didn't do drugs, and had no allegations brought against him) Contrary to popular belief, he was NOT a womanizer.
"...I think that the broadcast press feels as though they are paying final respects to an individual that defined their role in society. (Face it, John-John's salute is probably one of the most profound pieces of news footage ever!) That, in my opinion, is what the difference is in coverage by the press and television in this story. Those who are in broadcasting are able to rationalize the images presented. While those in print just cannot convey his image, his promise, his stature. Columnists are only to rely on the cold facts, which have led to a few disturbing trends.."
The verb "rationalize" means "to ascribe one's acts, opinion, etc. to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but actually are unrelated to the true causes." That certainly IS what we have been watching on the networks in the past few days. "Rationalizing the images" is why Americans today are so woefully misinformed - and here is a young journalist extolling the virtues of "rationalizing images" and not only dismissing facts, but CRITICIZING their use! She's been so thoroughly brainwashed that she believes spin is actually reporting!
And, that is what I was moping about. How can we ever find our way out of the mess we are in when the rising generation of journalists are being taught, as a matter of course, to NOT report the facts but to "rationalize the images?" And then, late in the day I received another e-mail from another young person, which said:
Dear Author,You know, I am a 20 year old college student, and this e-mail was forwarded to me by my father. (My column on "Common Sense is Politically Incorrect" - http://originalsources.com/OS7-99MQC/7-20-1999.1.shtml). I hold the same opinions that you do about the subjects that you spoke of in your message. I have been saying from the get-go that the death of JFK Jr. and the Bassettes is a sad turn of events, but do we turn anyone elses' home into a monument if they are killed? What about the soldiers who have died in the Kosovo conflict? And the innocent people murdered every day by gangs and drive-by shootings? Does the nation mourn for them? No, the nation is too busy being bombarded with small personal tragedies that are being given too much coverage. I just wanted to let you know that the youth of America is not always mesmerized by the media and their manipulative ways."
Sincerely,
T. Hinshaw
Thanks, T. Hinshaw. I needed that. Your e-mail chased away my gloom. There's hope out there, in spite of the "image rationalizing" that calls itself journalism today. I don't know what you are studying, but I hope you go into journalism. We need people like you in journalism who do not feel that facts are cold, cruel things that need to be avoided.
To comment: mmostert@originalsources.com .
ORDER THE REAGAN MONITOR !:
Start Your Subscription to the all new REAGAN MONITOR with the July-August edition -The Citizen Action Handbook - 106th Congress Directory - Names, Addresses, Telephone and Fax Numbers, District Number; and Participate in our Citizen Action Award for the most interesting Citizen Activist stories. Click Here to Order print or online issue.Click Here to Order print or online issue