National Media Still Full of Hot Air

Investigative journalism is a profession long dead in America. Once the cornerstone of all news outlets, it is now something reserved for British periodicals and newspapers with deteriorating circulation. Why has investigative journalism died? The plain and simple truth is that real journalism requires three things that mainstream America does not want:



1) It requires time to fully understand the story (i.e. does not fit into a convenient sound byte)
2) It typically involves some level of higher reasoning on the part of the reader
3) It is educational vs. sensational

This last point is certainly the most salient one. The proof of this came last week when the national media was mobilized to report on a boy from Colorado who was allegedly stuck in a home-made balloon and lifted thousands of feet in the air. After the balloon crashed and the wreckage was searched, the was boy found over 50 miles away in an attic. Ever since, media outlets have flooded the airwaves with slanderous stories about the family who tricked us all into believing that their baby was huffing atmosphere.

This story clearly demonstrates how journalism is indeed dead. First, the story obviously does not fit any of the three journalistic conditions listed above, and hence automatically qualifies for today's news. Second, instead of recanting the story on the basis of being farcical the media chose to provide additional coverage to the story. Third, why is the media still talking about this when the whole thing is a monumental waste of time? Why? Because the media does not want to look foolish for spending a ton of money tracking an empty tin foil balloon during prime time.

What I am really curious to know is whether this story would have been weeded out prior to national coverage had a real journalist worked the story? I don't know about you, but before I retrain my national satellite grid on a helium-filled flying piece of Reynold's Wrap, I actually would want to think about the feasibility of the story first. If investigative journalism was practiced in this case, here are some things that would have come to light within the first five minutes:

1) There was no gondola/basket on the balloon, so how could the boy be inside?
2) The balloon was sealed (presumably to keep the helium inside), so how could the boy be inside?
3) If the balloon was sealed and the boy was inside, the boy would be dead since the balloon was filled with helium
4) The balloon was too small to provide enough lift. The balloon would have had to be over 900 cubic feet in size (a 12 foot diameter sphere) to be able to lift the weight of an average 6 year old boy (about 56 pounds) --- This was actually a simple calculation based on very publicly available information on the properties of helium
5) The balloon was paper thin and if a boy was trapped inside we all would have been able to see him moving around - do you see him moving here...click here?
6) The kid's parents are clearly crazy and thus are not a highly credible news source

These six things came to my mind almost instantly, so why were these questions not asked? If they were asked, why did this story make headlines? What disappoints me most is that the media is missing the real story here. The real story is that the news has become a virtual extension of the reality TV culture that has taken hold of America. Media outlets could have used this event as a platform to reform their fact checking, lead verifying, and question asking standards. They could have changed the way things were done. Instead, they simply reworked the same old repugnant story from a different angle and put a new stamp on it.

What is inevitable is that as people begin to more clearly see the link between news and entertainment, the more of these stories we can expect. This should be the real takeaway. Instead, the news is choosing to sensationalize the already sensational. We will have weeks worth of morning talk shows, legal experts, court proceedings, child services visits, etc. We will get to know this family inside and out. We will be given every little piece of familial information that can possibly be found. Meanwhile there will be a person hundreds of miles away trying to figure out what he can do to shift the spotlight on himself. News today does not happen, it is made. As a result, there is no need for investigative questions. There is no need for research. There is no need for rational thought. In the end we will be left with a future of nothing but empty headlines and no sight of real journalism.

Going, Going, Rogue

Going Rogue. The title of Sarah Palin’s new book conjures up images of an individual that has thrown off the shackles of an ungrateful institution, and against all odds has taken the dark and dangerous path into the shadows towards an unknown destination. There is a real strength and beauty to the title, and then you see the picture on the cover and the whole thing dissolves into something incredibly painful and mind-numbing......reality.

There are three things that really stagger me about a book that could just as easily be named The Chronicles of an Inept Alaskan Governor and Socially Divisive Conservative Beauty Queen. In actuality, there are more than three things that bother me, but in the essence of time we will stick to the truncated list of concerns.

First and foremost, how does this book wind up on the New York Times Best Seller list? Not only does it top the list, but it tops the list before it is even in stores. What am I missing? What could possibly be the allure of this book? Is there some incredibly interesting back-story to the Presidential campaign that was not covered in sickening detail during the 14-months of non-stop political coverage during election season? Are we going to be told about the thousands of hours that were spent by Palin’s staff trying to cover up for her lack of social, geographical, economic, and political knowledge? Could there possibly be a 250-page account of how she is so roguish (and mavericky) that she is neither ultra conservative nor Republican, but still somehow manages to pull the conservative Republican party line at all times? Of course, this all begs the question: How can one be a rogue when someone else dictates your agenda? Something tells me that the liberal media will be blamed for that.

The liberal media can also be blamed (according to Palin) for another thing: her departure from office. Now that is truly rogue behavior. This is the second thing that gets to me. Why am I supporting a person who doesn’t support her voting base? Is the media giving you a hard time? No problem. Take your office and use it against the very people who you want to hurt most….Alaskans. Nothing shows more true grit than leaving your constituency in the lurch, your state finances in shambles, and your local government in a power vacuum. Rogues don’t play by the rules. Rogues don’t do interviews. Rogues don’t put up with media BS. Rogues face their problems head on; they quit. The only thing more roguish is to quit, then write a book about it.

Being rogue is hard work. No one likes a maverick, especially that liberal media. However, the liberal media label is a little confusing. Palin cited the media and its intrusion into her personal life as one of the primary reasons for her leaving office. Forget for a moment that she was in public office, or that there is no doubt that she will run for another public office. What I could never figure out is why she was surprised that she received so much media attention. She was the one who brought the media into her home to show the country how American she and Todd were. She was the one who literally paraded her pregnant daughter around the Republican National Convention to make a political statement on family values. She was the one who wanted the world to know about her kids’ hockey practices, learning disabilities, wardrobes, travel plans, etc. Is there any surprise that the media gave her what she wanted? Now, just to keep from stoking the fire too much, she publishes a book further intruding on her own privacy. Damn that media.

The point that this article is trying to make is that this book is as much of a political stunt as anything Sarah Palin has done in the past. The bottom line is that she is using this book, and all the media attention that goes with it, as a platform to run for an office that she is unqualified to hold. You can make all the arguments you want about other politicians who hold offices with equally little experience (political or otherwise). Those people are just as bad. Sarah Palin is good at one thing, and that is making people believe that she is some independent force in the political universe, unencumbered by the political morass that is Washington. Nothing could be further from the truth. She is a creation of the GOP and will always function in line with its goals. Therefore, the title of her book is oddly fitting. A rogue is not just a person who acts outside of the normal standard. A rogue also is typically defined as an unprincipled, deceitful, and unreliable person. Great, just what American politics needs.