So I'm on Facebook, being all hip and stuff. Writing my witty status updates. Finding the coolest Bumper Stickers about video games and anime. I'm a cool guy. Anyway, I just finish up my latest update that is somewhat serious for once. However, I don't believe Facebook is the place to be very serious about things. So after making a status about silence being a tacit messenger of an intended statement, especially when you don't have words that could express it, a friend of mine from high school "likes" the status.
Having your stuff "liked" often is an indicator of how well you are liked as a person, in case you didn't learn that in middle school...
Sarcasm aside, that friend liked my status before I commented on my status using "Your momz" as an example of not having to talk to a person for them to understand something. The whole sequence didn't take two minutes. Kinda afraid to look and see what response she has to that, because it could appear that I made that comment in response to her "like," even though I had not seen her approval yet.
Oh, snap! Did I just start two blog posts in a week's time? Yes, I did.
So there is a Shirley Sherrod (Google suggestions says that's the right spelling)? She's been in the news for a racist sentiment she had decades ago, but recently recanted this sentiment at a NAACP gathering of sorts a few months ago. A small portion of her lecture had been reported out of context, and made her out to be racist.
What makes this reporting of a statement out of context different from other statements is that
1. Most people seeing more of the lecture could agree that the snippet was not indicative of the intent of the lecture. She was saying (in my interpretation) that she once had a opinion of white people and their beliefs and no longer holds to them, seeing that poverty and capital is the cause of many problems. She acknowledged that race relations in the US is a problem, but her point was of her coming to realize that she shouldn't just help blacks, but those who don't have as much financial capital or structural power as others. (Specifically, she had withheld some of the aid she could have granted the farmer, because she believed that the farmer was interacting with her in a condescending manner.)
2. There is a huge deal being made of the mistake committed by the administration which forced her resignation once the report was released. Also, news stations, which had reported the story of her resignation before their own investigative journalism made their returns, had to report that the story and the resulting actions of the feds and their networks were premature and unwarranted. Some misrepresentations can be overlooked (whether they should be or not is a different point, but I'm sure FOX News and MSNBC don't want to spend time saying that they aren't reporting the full story.) But poor journalism like this couldn't not be glossed over without taking serious hits to their credibility.
Now, the story itself is interesting. I think Sherrod made no mistake at all for her lecture. I'm glad when people own up to their mistakes, and I like it even more when mistakes produce better decisions and beliefs that affect those decisions. However, even outside of her anecdote, she used the phrase "one of his own" when directing him to a lawyer.
Unless, she was thinking of her mindset at the time and how she phrased her thinking when finding the lawyer, that kind of language would have drawn some reprimand. I think Bill O'Reilly (Politically, I am a independent that agrees more with the Democratic party) said it best when he said she did nothing wrong, but with that kind of language, she should be in the private sector and not in the government.
But my point is of the speed of sound journalism and how it can't keep up with developing news with the advent and apt utilization of the Intertubes.
In my opinion, and in my few months in the field, sound journalism requires time. One must investigate their sources properly. But information about a story can break in a few moments, long before the finished product of a proper article or news segment can break. And given that there are multiple and competing sources of news, there is exists competition to break news that their respective audiences want to hear and to break that news before their rivals can.
This is the case for the story of Mrs. Sherrod. I don't pay much attention to news, so I don't know which news stations broke the story first and how they broke it. But going by the reaction today, I think just about everybody messed up.
- I'll start from the source and work my way down. Again, I don't think Mrs. Sherrod did any thing wrong, but her language might actually indicate some inner concept of "us" and "them" even now.
- The guy who broke the story first online for a conservative news source took only what he needed from the lecture and used it to serve his purposes. I don't like that kind of dishonesty, but that's his job, and I don't really expect anything different from partisan news sources.
- As this was found out by the stations we consume on television, online, or radio, they broke the stories using the snippets from the online source. Which is fast, with-the-times journalism.
- During this time, Sherrod's superiors were hearing the story as well. They needed to make a quick decision (I'll get to why eventually) based upon the first news source and what the secondary sources like CNN and FOX News were reporting.
Unfortunately, that doesn't allow for people to go and see the full source in time. Honestly, they probably could have just Googled (I dig Google...) the lecture to check up on it and see the lecture in its unedited form and realized what Sherrod was doing. But breaking a story half of an hour sooner than your rivals in today's speed of 3G world is a major selling point, and you can't sell breaking a story first if you went to Google it and listened to a half of an hour lecture.
And generally, catching a story in this manner would get you moderately accurate information. Or at least enough to make a initial story and variate the reports bit-by-bit as the story continues to develop. I mean, TMZ isn't my idea of sound journalism, but they did break the news of Michael Jackson's death first and did so accurately enough.
As for the people responsible for her forced resignation, given that they are a loose part of the administration, they must act swiftly in removing potential units that could bring poor favor to their camp. If it turns out that Sherrod had made a truly racist statement, but the Federal superiors had waited to check to see if it was true, news sources (and more accurately the news talk shows) would have condemned the government for only acting by the the fact that (in this case) FOX News broke the story, and would have accused the administration for not acting swiftly enough. As soon as the story broke, it was in their best interest to act. Sherrod wasn't in a particularly high-status position, so it would have been no big deal to cut ties with her.
As it stands in reality, everyone is apologizing.
And apologies have their place, but I would simply prefer sound journalism. I can wait a day to hear a story, especially when it doesn't affect me immediately or directly. Honestly, it probably didn't affect most Americans immediately or directly.
But as long as people want immediate gratification and immediate knowledge in polarizing issues such as this, government officials and news stations will have pressure to perform at speeds at which public resignations and sound journalism cannot ever adequately be performed.
And I don't blame them, really. If you don't have the favor and/or trust of the people, you can't be expected to have the vote to be in office. Giving politicians the benefit of the doubt in the spirit of this post, if you aren't in office, then you can't help the country in the way you believe the country should be helped.
The same thing goes for the media. If they aren't the fastest, they lose favor from their viewers. Admittedly, I don't think liberals will ever start supporting FOX News, and conservatives won't start watching MSNBC, but there is CNN which is a little more neutral, and actual hour/half-hour nightly news like ABC or CBS still exist. If you aren't fast enough, you risk losing viewership.
So, yeah. I blame our society of impatience for this gambit of gaffes. Just about every party involved committed some wrong, but I prefer to fix my own mistakes before expecting change from anyone else, because my wrongs may make their wrongs easier to commit.
Accurate journalism is taken for granted, as is the speed of journalism today. But whereas speed seems to be something that isn't as forgiveable, inaccuracies, from what I've seen today and tonight, can be reasons to point out the agendas of your journalistic rivals. (See Rachel Maddow.) Heck, they make for stories in and of themselves.
I mean, it got me to blog again.
In Psychology, I think to what I learned about Fundamental Attribution Error. In my words, it occurs when a person or group of people believe some event is based upon characteristics of a person in a situation, and not from the situation itself.
An unrelated example is believing a person who is late to an important meeting is simply imprompt and unreliable, as opposed to thinking that some unforseen event, such as traffic from a horrible accident, may have caused that person to be late.
In reference to this, I think people would believe that a news sources broke a story later than other sources because it is inferior, as opposed to realizing that journalistic excellence comes from measures that take time. Or people would think that the government didn't care about the racist comments until news sources made a big deal about it, as opposed to viewing an alleged instance of racism in its entirety before destroying a person's reputation and source of income.
A fix to that mindset would require a change in society and the way we think about situations (or choose not to think about them.) Unfortunately, changing minds, especially the minds of many, is hard to do. Usually, it requires a need to change. And if the reason to change is for the benefit of "them" (blacks, whites, Latinos, Asians, Middle Eastern, women, men, liberals, conservatives,) "we" aren't going to change.
Because we people are kinda selfish like that.
Peace.
Love.
Patience.
